we have won 11 awards the latest for the best overall food address beverage program and . >> like the oscars (laughter). >> the professional world. >> tell me about the future food. >> all the sb national leases are xooirz and we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what your passengers want. >> well, i look forward to the future (laughter) air are we look f. >>. [rollcall] metal chair, you

have a quorum. >> chair: great.>> clerk: announcement of probation of sound producing devices,and since we are in a virtual meeting there are no announcement . approval of minutesfor the september 7, 2021 regular meeting . for members of the public who wish to make public comment the number to use is 888 808 six 29, access code 691164.to address theboard dial one, then zero . >> chair: directors, before opening it for public comment arethere any additions to the minutes ? seeing none we will open it up to public comment. press one, zero if you'd like to make a comment on this september 7 regular meeting minutes. moderator is they are a caller on the line?

>> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker please. >> a question for item 9 pleas . >> next caller please. >> you have 1question remaining . >> caller: david phil powell, on the minutes page 4, under public comment i appreciated bob's comment about the meeting on rosh hashanah. i was not participating because it was rosh hashanah. as it turns out it is a holiday buti'm choosing to participate. i appreciate bob's comment . on page five dupree is misspelled. and on page 9 similarly at the top of in public comment i don't know who b-rod is but

there was an earlier reference to that individual and i believe it should be should be be capital rod. >> chair:moderator, any additional comments on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair: withthat we will close public comment and this is back before our director . i assume we can dosimple spelling changes adopted easily by the secretary . withour vote so is there a motion ? >> i will move the minutes. >> seconded. >> chair: secretary, can you call the role? >> clerk: [roll call vote] the

minutes are approved. >> chair: great, that brings us on to our next item. >> clerk: item number five, communications . >> chair: due to the covid-19 health emergency this meeting is being held virtually and all members of the staff and public are participating ir teleconference. on our webpage we asked the public to state remotely by leaving a voicemail message or writing us. all those who contactedus in advance , we have received these comments and we appreciate them. we thank you for honoring our request and we continue to encourage you to write to the board at mta board at sf tv.org or call us in advance to leave a voicemail message. while this technology allows

these meetings to be held via teleconference it may not be as seamless as we like whether it's the actual sfgov tv related contacts issues or even members of our board who may have audio and other issues. there may be gaps in silence as we are transitioning between speakers and please know that we are doing our very best to make these meetings run smoothly and we thank you for your patience. if we lose phone connection we will pause until the connection has been reestablished. i want to thank everyone on our team involved inmaking these meetings happen . there are a ton of people involved from sfgov tv to our own team sfmta and without them it would not have been a seamless almost 13 months now. >> clerk: this meeting is being televised by sfgov tv. there is a time lag between the

meeting and what members of the public are seeing on sfgov tv. if you wish to commenton an item please call the phone line when the item is called . for members who wish to make contact the phone number to us is 888-808-6929 . the access code is 9961164. to address the board dial 1, 0. make sure you are in a quiet location and that you mute any computers or tvs streaming the meeting. this will reduce any reverberation sothe board can hear you . item number six, introductionof new orunfinished business by board members . >> chair: any items under that section ? we have director heminger. >> thank you madam chair and i do have one item of business to bring to the attention of my colleagues and it is to introduce you to my new granddaughter who was born yesterday and her name is gemm .

i'm not sure whether she is yawning or yelling but either way ithink she's practicing to attend one of our meetings . so there she is. >> chair: can you move your ipad over? we couldn't quite see her. how cute that is. she's definitelyyawning . >> that's probably right. >> chair: congratulations. directors, any other remarks forthe good of the order or any other good news . director yekutiel. >> a quick update, director lai and i were honored and privileged to be one of the first people to ride one of the new escalators at the park powell station and i guess we all will use thatlater. it was a wonderful experience . it was smooth and it was lovely and i can't waitfor all 41 of

the escalators to be installed across the network . you to all who were part of that and congratulationsto director sandusky who spoke at the event . >> chair: directors, anyother items or unfinished business . director lai. >> thank you chair borden. today is the actual day i'm looking forward to walking along our streets with my family and i encourage everyone else to take advantage as well. we have lovely weather right now and i want to thank the agency for their presence at the chinatown autumn festival this past week. it's really important for us as an agency to be going into the neighborhood and participating and using those opportunities for local community opportunities to be doing outreach andmaking connections

with our members on , so thank you and i wanted to thankstaff for doing that . >> chair: directors, any other remarks or unfinished business items? seeing none, we will move on to our next item, the directors report. >> as usual we start with a visionzero update . we've seen an uptick ... >> chair: sorry, i want to make sure directorssilver has called the item in . >> clerk: actually i wanted to see if we could take public comment on that last item. >> chair: my mistake, story about that. moderator, or their colors on theline to new and unfinished business by board members? moderator, any colors on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining.

>> chair: with that we will close public comment and have secretary so thecall in the next item . >> clerk:that places us on the directors report . >> chair: director tumlin. >> as i was stating before recently we've seen an uptick and at risk motorists behavior including excessive speed, red light running and solo vehicle crashes that have resulted in your injuries and fatalities so i'd like to report on a couple of those and wewill have a few more on our next report . there was a motorcycle vehicle collision at the corner of eddie and mason that resulted in the death of a motorcyclist. both parties were traveling south. motorcyclists cut around to the left in one of two left turn pockets as the motorist to the right was making a illegal left turn and themotorcyclist died as a result of that . due to the nature of the collision no rapid response

recommendations have been made . on saturday, september 18 a cyclist was traveling northbound ondolores and 20th street . this was very late at night. the cyclist collided with a parked vehicle and died as a result of that collision. there is an ongoing investigation butit is likely no rapid response recommendations will be made . on sunday, september 19 at allegheny and temporary low a motorist was involved in a solo vehicle collision trying to pull a killed motorist rapid response results are pending but due to the nature of this collision it's unlikely there is much we could have done. finally on sunday, september 19 there was a serious injury collision at taylor and eddy street between motor vehicle drivers and scooter riders. it is police and rapid response results are still pending but due to the nature of this crash

is unlikely that recommendations will be made aside from continuing the efforts that we are making in order to improve safety result . finally i wanted to add that our cruise last week have been making rapid progress on the quick build that will be doing crosswalk upgrades, stop signs and other traffic features as part of the high entry network as and part of the bayview transportation plan implementation. next topic is cable car shutdownas you know the cable cars started up this last weekend after being shut down for just over a week . they had stopped runningtemper seven and the fire suppression system in the cable car unexpectedly discharged . the discharge of that triggered a variety of other safety systems that resulted in the

loss of electrical power to the whole facility and tricked the proposing system for the cable cars.the cause was a part of the fire suppression system that was original to the 1982 renovation of the cable car facility. we are having to have that 1982 part hand completed in ohio from a mom and pop shop and shipped overland to san francisco. that part should arrive this week. in the meantime our cable car crews have set up a fire system safety watch where they check in every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day stop allowing us to restart service. this is a reminder our cable car system has not undergone a complete system renovation in

nearly 4 decades since that 1982 remodel . the cost of doing such a renovation would be about $625 million. during the last renovation the federal government provided 80 percent of the renovation cost as a result of a national significance of that system. now despite the initial federal money available for capital upgrades we are not identifying any current typical spending that could help upgrade our national landmark usage or a federal public transportation programs so we we are working with private partners on a path forward to make sure the cable car system is in good working order.next topic is budget updates. asrequested by the board of supervisors we are preparing a written report to respond to their july resolution . we will explain the financial staffing and service implications of trying to use

100 percent of our federal relief dollars that have been set aside in order to cover our covid related losses for last year and this year.the board of supervisors asks that we spend all this money this year to restore 100 percent of our service but as you know we are expecting long-term covid related financial losses at least through 2025. the latest information we're getting from the controller's office and from the business community including the mayor and council is the san francisco bay area is typically the financial district remains a global outlier in terms of return to office. even is expected to return the end of this year the typical employers are expecting to bring people back only three days a week which resulted in a 40 percent loss in downtown san francisco office space commute so we are expecting a long-term financial losses and need to

make sure we have a plan for stable service as we continue to search for new sources of revenue.next topic is central subway. the subway project systems reached substantial completion back in june and this is a major milestone for the lifecycle. it sets the stage for further testing of complex operating systems. the station shows electrical systems and mechanical systems are all nearing completion. operational testing of the train controlsystem using rail vehicles began on monday october 13 .one of the most important radical steps towards revenue service and is still scheduled for may 2022. training for existing staff to operate and maintain the infrastructure is underway and we are hiring additional staff to be able to operate and maintain the new stations including station agents.

the next topic is just a quick review of a priority of work that were putting together that is documenting all the information we made during the pandemic. obviously we were a major contributor to the shared spaces which resulted in thousands of new shared spaces in san francisco as well as temporary emergency trend lanes as well as reinventing almost every street in the tenderloin. each of these projects is now undergoing technical evaluation to ascertain what they can achieve and what needs to be changed. for many projects have gone through a committee planning process to hear from the community about what they think are the changes . as we know we just wanted to note that we have implemented over 700 street changes to rearrange parking, closed streets at the request of essential service providers including medical care, food

banks and more. the vast majority of these were filled in last less than three days. it's something that would have normally taken months. 12 and a half miles of new transit lanes have been installed and a couple more miles are currently being straight right now on lombard street this week. these haveresulted in significant improvements to travel time for tens of thousands of writers . we have been able to get basically a 20 percent improvement in speed and reliability on the orders like the mission. as well as mulberry street.we also installed 45 lane miles to those streets and on average traffic volume on these streets havedecreased by 50 percent . bike ridership increased by seven percent and we also got a significant reduction in rations. we also succeeded two miles of

overtreatment throughout tenderloin including lock closures for essential services, physical distancing lanes for walking spaces, shared spaces and wayne streets full reportwith more detail and data will be released sometime next week . and finally in following up on director lai's comments i'd like to remind everyone muniz are almost all of the parks and beaches and tonight, particularly with it being so warm is the perfect night to go out to a park or beach particularly on a hilltop to watch the flooding son and a full moon rising in honor of the autumn moon festival. it will be a spectacular event as we get out of our community meetings in time to do so. i also like to announce right now i will need to get out of this meeting several times during the course of the meeting because the san francisco board of supervisors meets at the same time of the

mta board does at least for the time being and today we've got three importantitems for the board of supervisors including our light rail vehicle contract and meter contract . we are critical for our financial and transit service recovery. there's a a resolution about goldengate park and tom mcguire will take over formy role . that isall i have . directors, are there any questions. >> a real quick one, director tomlinson did a great presentation.and the report, i just wondered if you had an update on when some of the infrastructure indicates what street is the disclosed street to be updated or rehab. i've been going around the mission and she's looking pretty shabby. i'm just wondering whatthe timeline is for that . >> if you do a google search

for post-pandemic closed streets, each street project will come up. that includes detail on where each street is at. cromwell was one of the streets you allapproved, some additional treatments on . and at our next update we can provide some updates on exactly when we'reexpecting to be implemented . for example traffic divers is a key component of the next steps for the corridor aswell as updates for the other corridors as well . >> i'm sorry jeff, i only the post-pandemic streets page. with kind of the dates but i don't see when it says they're going to happen. it's just tbd for design approval, are we still in the

design approval space? >> are doing final design right now and we can provide you with a more detailed update once a that is together. >> thanks so much thank you, next up is director heminger jeff, i question thatrequest . the question is i believe the date you quoted for system acceptance on the central subway was a few months after we had expected it. but you're still forecasting the end date where we start service to be the same time . so how much do we have on that. as we ended up being a few months late. >> were fortunate the project team despite the shifting of the substantial completion date we are able to still accelerate work that normally one would not begin until after substantial completion so we're to compress the schedule somewhat. tom mcguire can provide more detailon the subject .

>> thanks jeff. jeff in light of the dates in june, we did have framed before that date. there's a role in the initial training testing and accepting the schedule completion of work on the systems and spaces so the path that we've been working on with this sports support has been one to make sure that we're making sure to drive down quickly the critical path and with the changes we made to accelerate tutor schedules into this spring. we were able to approve the critical path onto a train testing so while the substantialcompletion of this milestone for tutor training continues , it's easy to do other physical construction but their work will not impede the full-time testing taking place right now.

that's why we're so confident in that service date because it's the day of testing, no longer a heavy construction and critical path . >> thank you. the request has to do with the cable car shutdown and the cost of his renovation. and i really wanted torun out that one example to maybe others . you know, we're entering i think a period in the calendar where were going to be talking about some kind of ballot measure to fund mta operations and capital repair.and at least on the capital side i know the operations question is going to get a lot of airtime. including at the end of this meeting. but as per usual, i think the capital projects and needs probably will get a little bit

of a backseat. and i was hopingwe could avoid that . and in particular, just you mentioned the cable cars and the fact thatthey were renovated largely with federal money . it's largely with federal money that we do almost every capital improvement in the bay area. but what i wonder is if we could assemble some kind of inventory of our capital needs that would also happen to be let's just say attractive to voters. and i think a lot of people would like to help pay for renovating the cable cars. because they have such a stron sentimental attachment to those facilities . there are probably projects like that. it seems to me. and it would probably be helpful to have half a dozen, a dozen of them we could use at the appropriate time to help structure a ballot measure if

it is going to have that kind of project specificity. i was hoping that the staff could put his head together on the question and again, at the appropriate moments come back to us with something on the capital side that would probably complement the various options and mixing andmatching we're doing on the operating side . >> director heminger, i think that's an excellent idea and staff is probably preparing exactlythat . it's the paperwork in november so our capital improvement program is about what is the alignment between what our capital needs are. what are the federal and state funding that are going to be available and that is changing rapidlyparticularly in washington right now and also what is appealing to voters . so we are trying to have to

structure a capital improvement program to be quickly slot in projects. as conditions change about what the sources of funding are as what the possibilities are getting on which san francisco balance. >> that's good to hear. >> cable car is a big ticket item. just like updating the trains to we're doing a major renovation. >> i don't recall the details of that partisan infrastructure package and god knows we don't evenknow whether it's going to pass the congress but if it did , my recollection is that there were some pots of discretionary fund that a project like the cable cars could really slot in well with. >> theoretically. in the past cable cars are not quiteone thing or another . sometimes it is challenging to get them to compete well

against other projects nationally. >> somehow senator feinstein at the time figured out a way to declare them in thenational interest so maybe we could get a copy of her playbook and run the file again . >> or recognize that senator feinstein is a senator and might be here to make asimilar play . >> thank you ma'am chair. >> thank you director. next director heminger. >> this is probably a question maybe for director mcguire. i just was wondering if you stated that for a couple of our crashes and fatalities, we weren't going to be making, we're not going to be making any rapid response recommendations so i am just kind of curious in general what the factors are for when we do.

when we go out and make a recommendation. >> is an excellent question. tom mcguire. >> thank you for the question director hinze. it's always good to have a chance to repeat this. we're working at a lot of different wells, the rapid response team is there to go out to the site of the crash within 48 hours of a crash and look for any immediate deficiencies inthings like stop signs or traffic sites that are not visible for trees that may have overgrown, a one-way site or something . an existing traffic control device could be improved with pain or signage. it's justlike operates a rapid response and whatever they find on site whether it contributes to thecrash or not gets fixed . the same time it's street like allegheny, one of the streets that you mentioned it's all a network . our intention is to quickly

build the entire high injury network by the end of 2024 as a key component of our vision zero campaign because the rapid response doesn't have something they can turn around in a matter of days with respect to signage at the were not going to get to that high injury network before the end of 2024 so we are working on every inch of that network. in the final thesis some of these crashesinvolve i think jeff for to it as antisocial or really apparent behavior by drivers behind the wheel . there is our strategy with vision zero is engineering design on the streets as much evaporator as possible and at the end of the day you cannot deny that way 100 percent of the antisocial behavior to people just behind the wheel and that's where education enforcement campaigns sort of catch that drivingbehavior . but on all three of those tracks, just because the rapid response team is not in the street doesn't mean we don't

have eyes on every single one ofthese . >> thankyou for that context . >> any additionalquestions from directors before i open it up to public comment . seeing on, moderator or their calls online. just to remind colors item number on his item number seven, directors report so you may ask or questions or comments made either by director tomlin or by members of thisboard. moderator, are there colors on the line ? >> chair: first speaker please. c8 thank you for allowing me this special question period of special director tumlin. we are supportive of his initiatives on project zero and safe streets. i hope that he will support going anywhere fair passes and

some other fair reforms. and also very excited about what's to come and finally i don'tthink i gave my name . my name is jo consular. so with that i'll hand over th microphone . and you so much. >> chair: next speaker please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair: next speaker. >> caller: i am in district 10. i am really happy that the cable cars areback . thank you for that.i would like to point out though as director tumlin pointed out this is something that hasn't been updated since the80s . i would like to propose that perhaps supervisors or the mayor should think of an approval for director tumlin,

that we're spending a lot of time deciding what lines we want to cut forservice but apparently we're skipping routine maintenance . i'm hoping that we do renovate cable cars at some point so we don't lose it we lost our pool for 4 years. it looks like we're losing the mission library for three years. you have a mom and pop shop, did you have a mom and pop shop receive fares? how much time are we putting into these kinds of thoughts versus taking away?these three choices, what i call a false choice that's been given, the supervisors that have been given the board resolutions twice, once in july asking for all service to be restored immediately, please do that and in each resolution the supervisor board pointed out when they have been approached

for an mta funds in the past that they have provided them and that they would be willing to provide them again and as far as they know they had been. so thank you for our service, is needed and let's not lose our cable cars. >> next speaker please. >>. >> next speaker.hello. >> i am from the excelsior district.and i'm really glad that you're having the cable cars back. thank you for that. keeping the cablecars up and everything , thanks . >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please.

>> next speaker. >> good afternoon, this is gary toronto. i did not participate last week. i will beaddressing that issue during regular public comment . and likedavid , i chose tospeak today even though it's the jewish holiday . but i want to address two issues. one, i would appreciate you rethink the hov lanes regarding a lombard and park presidio due to the change in traffic patterns. due to the pandemic. and the problems of dealing with congestion on those streets during the peak hours. and a number of buses that use those corridors at any one time. the bus routes are less and the number of people taking those

buses are less so i appreciate that you revisit the issue . otherwise i think the trial going on now with the credit union is going to have a heyday using this as another reason why the city is not really, mta is not supporting the industry our passengers. by keeping us out of the hov lanes and the tmc is letting them use thoselanes because most likely they're going to have passengers in the vehicle and the crowd goes lanes with their rides . and the next thing i wish jeff tumlin good luck today because there's controversy related to the contractregarding the streetcars. thank you very much for your time . >> clerk: any additional color on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: we will move on to our next item.

>> next item is item number eight, citizens advisorycouncil report moving on to itemnumber nine , public comments . >> clerk: this is a time for members ofthe public to comment on items not on the agenda today . please speak the appropriate item number otherwise you can talk about any topic that is under our jurisdiction as the mta so with that we will move on totake public comment . moderator, arethere colors on the line ? >> chair borden. >> before we go to public comment can i say somethingreal quick ? >> chair: sure. >> i forgot to mention at the beginning today is a holiday and i want to usher insurable as a long-range calendar also want to make a commitment to make sure that we are not holding our meetings on major

jewish holidays. >> chair: thank you very much and we realize the oversight earlier and are very much apologetic and will not have this problem in thefuture . thank youfor outlining that . moderator, are there colors on the line . >> hello. the 2022 plan does not address options for the jaded church as mta promise just two months ago. of course we want mta to solve their technical problems but not at the expense of direct service. this isnot an either/or debate . mca says service is better now than in 2019. of course it is. ridership ishalf what it used to be because of extensive

working at home . and work-at-home is here to stay. mtais making an apples to oranges comparison . they compare current performance to performance when twice as many people were commuting and twice as many trains were in the subway at rush hour. to establish a legitimate baseline , mta should restore j service to downtown now observed the performance. we have been told that i 6j trains for our would bring the total number of trains to 24 per hour. for below the 41 per hour pre-pandemic. elected officials who wish to remain in office must consider writers preference fordirect service andaccessibility . not just speed . willingness to involve the community in coming up with solutions should be a requirements for appointment to the mta board directorship.

a transit agency that wants writers to approve transit taxes will defeat itself by using the pandemic for a stealth attack on the long-standing values transit line. >> i'm going to note that was a comment on item number 11 therefore each person gets the same amount of time to comment on each item. we will not again be able to comment on item number 11. this was general comments this was for things that are not on the agenda by law as i mentioned everyone has to have equal time on every item. that's the reason why if you spoke on this item now at this time he asked you do notcall him again on item number 11 . thank you so much for your comments and we will have a robust discussion about this shortly.moderator, are there additional colors online ? >> you have any questions remaining.

>> chair: just a reminder this is not in line to address our muni service. >> my name is herbertweiner, i'm a senior citizen and also a social worker . now, there's been tremendous neglect of seniors and the disabled by mta. this includes safety on the sidewalks and accessibility to bus stops. and what is so bad about this is that it parallels the scandal of the olympic gymnast. where they appealed for redress from their abuse and neither their sports organizations for the fbi listened area i am and other people have spent countless years feeling for redress for the negative impact on mta transportation plans on the accessibility topublic

transportation . there are lawn marks on the bus stop, they're not really 2 to , they are 2 to 3 long locks. and it is very cool to continue this practice. and basically, mta the sea in crueltywith his planning .you have to recognize the need for seniors and the disabled who constitute 20percent of the city's population .and you can no longer have our grievances fall on deaf ears. in its persistent this will eventually catch up with you . if there are resignations and terminations that will follow this . do something to address this inequity. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please.

>> you have any questions remaining. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can, go ahead. >> caller: i did not realize there was an item 11 a may not be able to be on the phone at that time i wanted to concur and beheard in regard to the j line . it seems like there was really a lack of community outreach that wasunder the guise ofthe pandemic . and it was no indication that this was even going to be permanent . things like that don't happen in a vacuum. i am able-bodied but i spent three months on crutches and i have to tell you i use a church to get downtown at i would not have been able to do that if i hand had a chance here so i'm very concerned. itseems like this is something that'sbeen decided without the community . i think the time-saving , you cannot do a 2019 comparison so i think that study isfaulty.

the survey that was pointed out to people inthe neighborhood also was misleading . there wasnothing that allows you today that you do not want this to be permanent . so they were very roundabout . i feel like this is afinal decision which is feeling like it is . i think that has tobe addressed immediately. thank you . >> next speaker please. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> next speaker.>> you board and thank you directors. haight-ashbury neighborhood council urges the sf mta board of directors to reopen service on the six parnassus and 21 days bus line. these lines must be fully restored andreopened . currently, without the 21 day elders and residents of mercy comments on hayes street, they must now walk the long locks, nurse to mcallister or three blocks south to a street, also

uphill in order to catch and eatwestbound transit line . or they must watch three and four blocks east to divisadero for west to ride a north-south traveling line to the transfer point. many elders are disabled must utilize canes, walkers and handcarts to go about their daily activities . before being shut down by the pandemic both the 21 hayes and the six parnassus lines combined carried some 15,000 riders per day. for many decades, san franciscans have relied on the six parnassus and 21 to access state hospitals and dcf along with at least 10 public and private middle and the grammar school. both the 21 six lines provide access to critically important institutionslocated between downtown and western san

francisco . breaking the sunset. and into richmondand so forth. these two bus lines certain important institutions including theoperas, symphony, jasper center, ballet , city hall, state building, federal building,department of motor vehicles, usf , hastings and three local neighborhood farmers markets . you have not taken to account thepublic reliance of elders , schoolchildren, low income workers and director tumlin has said sfmta cannot afford to reopen all lines but refusing to say when and if the six and 21 will be reactivated. these are essential and critical lines that multiple myriad san franciscans have depended on for many decades which is unacceptable to make us wait as long as we have waited. thank you very much. >> again, if you're commenting

aboutservice that is item number 11 . if you comment about service now, you forgo that staff will be talking later if not on the call and will hear those comments. so if you commentedout about the service and we cannot commentagain on item number 11 . so as a reminder , if you're calling about general public comment about topics not going to be discussed like 2022 service, now is that time.if you want to talk about any lines being restored or service modified that's related to our 2022service , please wait until item number 11. again, we have to allow everyone equal time to address each topic. people are not allowed to have more than one time period to address a specific topic. with that we're going to open the item up. are there morecolors online for general public comment . >> you have seven questions

remaining. >> next speaker. >> afternoon board members. want to comment on an item not on today's agenda. my name is anastasia annapolis, a senior who lives on 24th street near church street. unfortunately i was without sufficient input from the community muni has cut service to the j church line transit plan that the board will be asked to vote to approve this not address restoring it. muni needs to put the church around the back for 104 years. forcing j church writers to transfer a church in market to get downtown or back home, with families traveling with infants and youngchildren . nannies and schoolchildren going on plastics, senior citizens, persons with mobility issues including those who use walkers and canes and the blind safety at risk. idon't relish having to stand outside in the dark .

some of the risks to safety that structures force transfer at margaret street imposes on vulnerable segments of transit riders includes stepping across tracks to get across a busy intersection at church in market . to take two steps upstairs down to the underground transit or having to go across a wide treat littered with muni traps to reach an elevator or forthe market train . could you imagine a woman slipping and sliding on those muni tracks? usage patterns have changed. overcrowding now according to transit improvements surveys are 68 percent of respondents opposed the transfer. muni staff, stop stabbing the trade-off of saving time. those who wrote along with

supervisor mandel and 57 minutes to get from 54th and church street and high time to restore a one state ride on the j church and invest in an updated automatic transit system for backup .you. >> just a reminder, j church is as i understandit item number 11 .it doesn't have outline all the service lines might be confusing but if you're calling to comment on j church and any other line of muni wait until item number 11otherwise we will move general comment to the end of the meeting . if you're in the queue and calling about an item that's not going to be discussed under the winter meeting service, a line being cut for extended, anything related to that then now isyour time to speak . otherwise we are going to the nextperson to speak on this item , not an unrelated item. going to move public comments to the end of the meeting so

now is your time to comment on itemswe've covered like taxi or other issues but not our service plan. next speaker please . >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: this is barry toronto. i noticed the way you said like taxi and other issues. so that segues to me. i first want to say i am very offended. i know you've apologized. offended by you holding the meeting on one of the second most religious jewish holidays of the year and i don't know why it wasn't caught and i don't know why one of the members attended the meeting who had to speak or not observant but observe the holiday. i don't know why the board of supervisors met that day considering a number of them actually attend the meeting are of, are jewish so it doesn't make sense to me at all.

it doesn't but icouldn't participate because of the religious significance of rosh hashanah . so i don't know. but the thing is regarding your approval of all these transportation code changes we did not participate in public comment because public comment, what i hear from other people watching could not do public comment because it came up quickly and if you are watching online you have to be on the phone and you didn't have a chance to respondby hitting one, zero so you were blocked out of doing public comment . you were wondering why it happened so quickly and number two regarding the improper illness of holding it that day was the fact they held some outreach meetings but one of

them had a problem with technology. there was a technology issue that prevented people from making public comment. we were given a lot of opportunity because of how the technological trends made it difficult for people. they're doing a better market survey and i hope help distribute flyers so drivers would know because not everybody as email access to the email blast. they're doing a survey of taxi drivers which i hope they will consider again considering there are fewer buses particularly at night in the center lane and i hopethey can reconsider this because we really need to have access to both lanes . the last part is the issue of tenderloin. it's the wild west out there. not just with pedestrians ignoring the traffic signals but also the scooters. the scooters don't care there's a red light and or a stop sign. it's a wildwest and the police don't have enough personnel to do all that traffic control . thank you very much.

>> clerk: thank you mister toronto, next speaker on general public comment on items onthe agenda . next speaker. moderator, maybe you can release the next speaker. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: thank you chair and members. aletha dupree for the record. my pronouns are she and her. i came and visited and spoke with youall two weeks ago in philadelphia . yesterday the metropolitan transportation commission held a very informative presentation about fair integration. i'd encourage you to watch it. i think maybe they need to be involved with fare integration.

it's important tobecause it's not just about san francisco . it's asystem of regional significance . i used it in tandem with other systems like public transit because i go across the bay every day because i spend my nights in oakland and we needto continue our work quicker start and work towards open payments . and it's going to be a heavy lift, but we can't dothings the way we did in the 1800s anymore . where the transfersand all that are really showing its age . equity involves improvement, everyone participating in improvements for the future so i think we need to go to a totally clipper-basedsystem and work on our clipper start because the future has lots of things to offer . i think we also have to work

towards making sure that all of our stock are ava compatible. there's still some places where the streetcar stop and people aren't able to board because you don't have theboarding island, etc. so bart and washington metro are totally ada accessible . i think we should take our capital work on that. i want our muni to be a forward thinking muni where everybody can participate fully. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: my name is bill graziano andi'm in district 10 . i'm calling about silver avenue at bayshore and sand burnout avenue. this intersection was just redon for turning for the

buses. i think you need to re-examine what was done. it's a very chaotic, i'm sure howaccidents happen or how pedestrians get hit . it's a very confused crowded intersection. our suggestion would be because idon't know how many of you are familiar with this intersection . it crosses over bayshore freeway. so it might be good to have the planner show you this intersection at 8:00 in the morning and how you can make adjustments. i think all crosswalks from silver and sand burnout and

silver and bayshore would eliminate a lot of the estrogens interacting withcars. iq . >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> you have 4 questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon directors. my name is parnell warmer and listening to a vision zero rapidresponse , brought to mind aquestion that's been bothering me for a while. i walked a lot in the city . 3 to 7miles a day is not uncommon . and i cross a lot of seats. and i've become very good at leaving drivers. the number of times i get rushed back by a car who wants to turn or who is late to a red

light or who isignoring a stop sign is very large . we talked a lotabout vision zero .we really have a strong goal but are you capturing the nearness incidents in the city west and mark your clearly looking at incidents where they have significant problems. what are you looking at the incidents to understand what is happening in the streets and how you can make the streets safer for pedestrians, not just in a high injury corridors but throughout the city. and exactly slow streets, walking on several slow streets i observed that your card used to stop at a stop sign and once they're crossing the slow streets you say a half, no one's coming. i can just load the stop sign. we've got a problem here and i don't think that's talked abou . >> thank you,next speaker please .

>> you have three questions remaining. >> this is an open partner from district 10 not related to a service issue . this is related to fares and cable cars. the three youth care programis excellent, thank you . our novelists drive that use public transport for everything and one of the things we love is we've been able to use cable cars to get back and forth across town about the interests and gives us away. we got three kids under 12 right outside. so that is great. but what we run into is that now that we have a youth program, if you had a auto pay youth passwhich one of the kids did , it will keep you and that's finebecause that gives

you the pre-k rights still . if you do not, you can't get a youth pass when you put the card in anymore so you don't get free cable car ride anymor . sf 311 has been helpful. there is a form you can fill out. the form doesn't work though because the forum is old free muni programso you should be able to fill out the form . you fill out the form and they add card access to kids that use the cable cars but since it's the old free muni form it still has a environment field and you're still automatically get a letter that says no, we can't do it because your fees are too high so if they can fi that part that would be great . if they would give us a way to buy a youth muni pass we'd like to keep supporting the system anyway and that would be great but without a fix it ends up costing more. iq.

>> thank you, next speaker please. >> next speaker. >> it's bobplant called. this is about bus stops . muni has done a good job of publicizing and explaining its plan and its process for eliminating applied for.. way back in the 90s a quarter of a century ago when i was on the line, heminger staff then said that any plan, was developing a plan to eliminate these course the same stocks we complained about are still there. in more recent times, your director tumlin has talked of trying to look at serving the most numbers but that ignores that sometimes people with disabilities or seniors for single parents may not be a

regular 9-to-5 weekday work type computers but they're going to need service and therefore we may not show up in the same numbers and categories of population as workday commuters but we needed as much if not more because some of us don't have an option other than muni or maybetransit where as many workday commuters could potentially walk a bit to take part , bicycle to muni or bart and therefore they're getting counted and we are excluded. and this regrettably also shows a bias towards wheelchair users because even their research had people who count wheelchair boardings which ignores many people with mobility disabilities do not use wheelchairs but walkers, canes crutches or guide dogs. count just by wheelchair ramp

deployments is undercountingus. that again a bias problem . >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: can you hear me now? on item 9, unrelated to the winter service restoration. in my opinion, the july 15 2020 22nd supplement to the mayor's declaration of the covid emergency may require full cable car service october 13 of 2021. it's a question of legal interpretation and i would encourage you to ask that. also related to the code which

was talked about earlier. last night i participated in a meal in a scar on a shared spaces part way. so it's interesting how park was in shared spaces actually kind of lend themselves to celebration of this particular jewish holiday which involves a temporary structure that's partiallycovered . anyway, it's interesting. andfinally on a sign of , richard roffman, a regular commentor for this board and related to the mta had a recent death in the family. i know the board of supervisors is doing the memorial today on that matter. my thoughts are with him and i

would injury you to think about richard and that's all i have for item 9. >> thank you for that and we're sosorry to hear of his loss. moderator, arethere any additional colors on the line ? >> you have one question remaining . >> next speaker please. >> my name is stacy randy. i'm calling about their work 2 deaths this weekend on our streets. one is inparticular the cyclist on the loris street . sf pd and said it was a cyclist just shy of 11 pm, crashed into cars and that's it. there's no cause. it was just a solo cyclist and i just find it incredibly hard to believe that you can attend

something saturday night that there were no other cars on dolores or at the bus stops might not have somehow contributed to this persons untimely death. and i'd like to know what sfmta is doing about that. my other question is going to be regular and that is i would love to know what you're doing towards the client emergency that we have. what is changing in terms of minimizing car traffic in the city? increasing unit service, decreasing headway, making everything moreaccessible. making biking and walkingsafer . we need to , we said we're going to reach vision zero,i don't see it happening. we're going in the wrong direction . the city declared a climate emergency and we're not doing

that. it's the transit first city and yet cars get first pick every time so i'd like to have some sort of reporting on these goals we are so intertwined with how are we doingthat ? >> thank you, are there any additional colors on the line for general public comment. >> you have zero public questions remaining. >> with that we will move on to our next item on the calendar. >> that places you on consent calendar. the items are considered to be routine and will be voted on by a member of theborder public wishing to consider items separately . members of the public if you wish to address a board member press one so that you can be added to the queue and when speaking please identify which item number you are speaking to . item 10 requesting the controller against such funds

in payment of the following claims against sfmta. mary steiner, the report cdc 205-8417 filed on april 8 2020 four $500. superior court cdc 19575, 659, filed 2019 for $45,000. linda chen superior court cdc 20584568 filed onmay 26, 2020 , for $55,000. item 10.2 making environmental review findings and approving traffic modifications as listed in the agenda. item 10.3,approving a bikeway

and parking restrictions on washington street between drummond street and the embarcadero, entering restrictions of the embarcadero with broadway and washington street as listed in the agenda . 10.4 amending transportation codedivision 2 section 6.01 to designate full-time trafficon fourth street between barry and channel street and approving traffic modifications and making environmental review findings . that concludes the consent calendar . >> chair: as a reminder board members, consent calendar is not discussion and ifyou want to have a discussion on any item will out the item and allow separate public comments and separate conversations . if you don't want to have a full hearing on items then please don't pull the items that were not going to beable to take any comments because of the consent calendar. at this point are there any items that peoplewant to discover from the consent calendar ? seeing on we will now move to public comment .moderator or their calls on the line that

is any itemunder the 10 section of ouragenda . 10.1, 10.2 or 10.4 . speaker . >> caller: you have two questionsremaining . >> caller: can you hear me now? here's the thing, i have comments onall 4 of the consent calendar items . so if you want to separate them and consider each one separately or you want me to make reef comments on each of those itemsin turn now , howdo you wish to proceed ? >> clerk: if you would like to make comments on each of the items it's probably easiest to go. city attorney, should we cover all four items or have them do a block of time to each of the items? >> clerk: thank you chair board and deputies. at your discretion but it seems

like we can allow the member of thepublic to make comments on those items . clearly that's fine or to separate the items at your discretion . >> chair: what you go ahead and make those comments serious serially and if there's a need to have staff directly answer, if there's a question to answer that's one thing so we can handle that so go ahead mister philpott. >> caller: i will address them serially. i'm not a killer so i'm not a serial killer . for item 10.1, the claims matter. this is the first time i've seen reference in the enclosures to a settlement report since these documents areprivileged and confidential. i'm sure that's true. i'm not interested in any settlement reports .

my comment or question is whether there's a single settlement report for all three cases or ifthey are , if there are three separatesettlements reports . my interest here is in promoting disclosure of settlement agreements under 67, sorry. administrative code 67.12 which are required to be available at least 10 calendar days prior to approval of the matter and if there are such settlement agreements , i am interested in their disclosure. again, not interested in settlement reports for confidential medications from your attorney related to the proposed claim settlement. that's 10.1. can i move on to 10.2? >> chair: yes please. >> the traffic modifications, the explanations for each change starting on thebottom of

page 2 for example, modification a extended our area eligibility . the language there refers to each modification as if it has already occurred. i would suggest that in the future that you use a different verbtense . either changes or would change but not changed. and in the resolution, one moment. the resolution is kind of weird on the last page. thesignature line kind of breaks across the last page so maybe that can either be shortened or lengthened . but that came off. these are my comments on 10.2, should i move on to 10.3?

okay. 10.3 social embarcaderosafety project traffic modifications . the staff report does not indicate it's a public hearing was held pursuant to transportation codesection 201 , sorry. 2001c and 2012. if such a public hearing was not held i would not consider the item at today's meeting if it was held and i would like to know on what date and whether the proper sign posting occurred. i understand that much of the scope of that item is under court jurisdiction but that portion that is under mta jurisdiction i believe is still subject to the public hearing and posting requirements of the transportation code sections that i referenced. that's my comment on 10.3. should i move on to 10.4 yes.

>> caller: 10.4, on the fourth street bridge traffic modification. same comment that i just made about the public hearing requirements of transportation code section 2.1 c and 202 . there was reference in the staff report to a prior hearing in january for the temporary emergency transport element of the fourth street bridge restrictions, but not a subsequent public hearing to make those changes permanent. so again, i'm commenting and inquiring as to whether or not the public hearing requirements have been met for that proposed permanent change. also on 10.4, the staff report refers to the environmental review of the case number is

notincluded in the staff report or the resolution . i believe if it's eps 2011.5508 e and so far i have not been able to find the july 13, 2021 planning department determination that it's within scope on the planning department website.it may be buried somewhere and i'm having trouble finding it. it's certainly not on the page that was referenced in the staff report. let me find that. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: the staff report on page 1 first to the two items. items number 44 enclosure. the first one that's listed for the tdp fir certainly does not include the july 13th 21st, sorry. the july 2021 determination on that page so it is misleading

at best and incomplete at worst. anyway those are my comments. thank you very much for listening. >> chair: next speaker please. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: this is barry toronto a fewclarifications here . under 10.2 , it's under t it says established told at leavenworth eastside from mcallister to 159 and southerl . i thought leavenworth starts at mcallister so idon't understand where you go south.that means you would have to go onto a sidewalk onto union plaza to go

south . i'm wondering if i'm reading this wrong or it's supposed to be northerly. it doesn't make sense because leavenworth starts at mcallister. item 10.3 , you know the traffic at night especially pedestrian is minimal. i was wondering if you could limit thehours on the noturn on red . i know you're doing this to make it safer for the bikeway but the thing is at night , with little enforcement to restrict the no right turn on red is kind of an exercise in fruition so i'm wondering if you could change thewording there . because it's just going to i've encouraged scofflaws. and 10.4, the muni only lane is it possible to allow taxis to use that lane as well rather than say muni only, why can't taxis use that? you're doing it for the

southbound side but can you do it for thenorthbound side ? that's all i have, thank you very much. >> clerk: moderator, any additional callers on the line? >> you have 2 questions remaining. >> clerk: this is for items on the consent calendar only so 10.3 and 10.4. if your comment is on our winter servicethat's the next item and this is not the time to comment . next speaker please . >> caller: i'm commenting on 10.4.i want to thank all those involved. the sfmta staff but especially thatcommunity today . as i said before, san francisco's economic recovery is helped by a bus frequency and the cleanup of writers and operators.

>>. [inaudible] it's essential if san francisco will survive and thrive in covid. thank you for your time and i look forward to working with you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have onequestion remaining . >> this is stacy rand acker and i wanted to express my support for no turn on red. i wish that was thecase throughout the city . it's very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians as well so any time that you are taking the opportunity to establish a no turn on red , especially that should be absolutely mandatory. i don't know how a bicyclist is

protected without that. and i would encourage paying through the intersection and i would say it should not have a time of day because we don't think our streets stop at certainhours of the day . bikes should be able to ride safely whenever they want to as well. thank you. >> clerk: any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair: there was not really a lot of clarifying things so can you answer the questions related to 10.1 and the closure of relateddocuments ? >> certainly chair borden. i want to also welcome the input of secretary silva documents related to

settlements are required to be available to the public and raised ahead of time in a publicly accessible document. it has been the general practice of the agency to have any agreements or the resolutions available 10 days ahead of time so i'll just confirm with secretary silva that that will continue to be the mta practice . >> we do make those available at our front desk for members of the public. >> rate. and i guess there were two questions about hearings that took place on 10.3 and 10.4. i know thatmister drucker , mister drager you can confirm that there was a hearing and on may 25 for the core commission on the embarcadero item. >> this is mark drager, project manager for thecentral market

project . indeed many of the changes within this project were within the jurisdiction of thesupport commission . so we held a public hearing as one of the series of meetings that we had withthe commissioners , the support commissioners this summer on may 25 and that was notice to the public both digitally and on the stream by the entire embarcadero and onwashington street .>> and then similarly on the 10.4, mister mcguire, i , was there ahearing on this item ? >> yes. i am project manager for the transit lane. the commentor is correct. we have the public hearing for the temporary project on january 10 of this year to approve and then we also had a hearing for the permanence project on october 7 two weeks ago which we re-noticed with

the corrected calendar item regarding the southbound lanes due to the error inour last slide . and that was noticed for this meeting today. >> rate, thank youand i do recall that . finally, miss jones. there were questions about documents. i know that you're on chart of where the planning department store is but if you have any insightsas to where those documents are . >> sarah jones, planning director. i will be following up on that inquiry. i know they have been shuffled around the site and it's always complicated with those older eir is we will make sure that that's available and that's it continues to plug away at trying to make this more seamless andcustomer friendly . >> great.

with that directors, is there a motion onthe consent calendar ? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> secretary can you please call the role and mark. >> on the ocean to approve the consent calendar chair borden. >>. [roll call vote] >> the consent calendar is approved. >> can i go back to one question, there was confusion about under 10 point, mister toronto asked a question about outbound on the leavenworth to i forget which one that is but mister mcguire was paying attention. and had an answer.

>> tom mcguire, researcher. i believe mister toronto is referring to a regulation on special leavenworth street south, thatmost of us know that as part of the un plaza . there was an updated loading zone parked within the plaza and your action today will remove that and make it another state any time. which is probably the appropriate thing for a pedestrian law. >> thank you for clarifying that andmy apologize for not asking that before . we will move on to our next item. our consent calendar. >> clerk: that places you on item number 11, discussion on the 2022 muni agenda. >> chair: wehave mister kennedy speaking to us, director her spot has to be at the board of supervisors so welcome mister kennedy .

>> good afternoon directors. sean kennedy, transfer letting manager at the sfmta and i'm excited to be here to talk about my favorite subject which is transit service. your director as someone has noted a number of times that both parking and transit fare revenue is down especially farebox recovery is 10 percent of what was free covid. every day transit service or weekday transit service is five percent of what we were seeing pre-áuntran4á and as he noted in his opening remarks we are expecting thatto last quite a while . 2023, 2024, maybe into 2025 . we've got a lot of help from the federal government as you all know what there are going to be obviously some long-term financial impact and right now we're at about 75 percent of pre- covid service hours. we are in the process of training and hiring more

operators as well as mechanics so we think by the new year by the start of 2022 will be able to add about 10 percent more service to the system so that's really the crux of what we want to talk about today is how do we have that 10 percent where does it go and what do both the board and the public in general want to see based on their values from a former transportation andtrading system . so just a little bit of context, before we get into the specifics on the plan. we are talking about three different alternatives today and these alternatives contrary to some initial comments earlier in the meeting, all three of these alternativesare perfectly viable . we are able to implement all three. they are functionally possible, they're financially possible. technically possible and we're really trying to get feedback

from both you and the board as well as the public in general about whatthey want to see in the future ? all three of these buckets are scenarios that i'm going to go over in more depth in a minute. i use the same amount of resources it's not , the outcome isn't tipped in favor of one or the other. we you know, we're interested in trying to get, what people want and this is also i want to also highlight for earlier colors that there is no decision being made today. this is an informational hearing and were just talking about these different buckets in a public context. as i said, we're resource constrainedobviously for early 2022 . this is one step in the recovery . this is not the final product. as director tomlin noted we are

working continually to raise more funds and get more operating funds forthe system so we will , this is one of many discussions that we will be having about transit service in the coming 6 to 9 months. but with that said, we have about seven linesthat are not running currently , that run on a daily basis three tumlin and as i noted we're going to be training and having hiring staff and getting ready for to ramp up those service levels so i want to talk today and dive into what that looks like and looking back to march 2020, when we drastically reduced service we went down to 17 daily lines and since that time we've just restored service six different times. we've added a ton of service on some of our busiest routes as an example. mostly that was done to promot

social distancing .on some of those major corridors like mission and potrero, even fillmore, 16th street . we you know, ridership was always strong on those corridorsand we are 80, 85, even some cases 90 percent of pre-pandemic ridership on the number of thosedoors and lines . and obviously if you look systemwide we're at 45 percent so some of these lines are performing well . we also added several lines during the period including the 15 which goes from the bayview until soma as well as the 58 which goes around park. we've modified some lines and i'm going to get into those more here in the next few slides all of these decisions really have been focused on making sure that our essential workers and essential trips to

be made during the covid period connect important land-use of hospitals and grocery stores with people that have fewer transportation and specifically transit options. so really based onthat media equity strategy is how we've made all those decisions today . the modified lines, we have a number of lines that have been modified and i want to talk to you three specifically.these lines, including the j, the 2357 and the 48 35 changes as the earlier caller noted are actually back into all of these scenarios . and we are completely open with and to modify how those lines operate and run but the overall kind of resource need or constraint is there so what i

mean by that is from the 23 we can modify how the 23 or 57 operate but we need to stay within the number of buses that we are currently assuming to be operating on those lines so i want to go over a few of those pacific's, the 2357 and as a note here, the 23 that used to go all the way down slope to view that's been noted by the blue lying there. during covid we modified it so it providesmore shopping options as well as a connection to the subway . additionally we modified the 57 routes so now it goes from tones town down to daly city park. and then at the same time we've created a call the 58 goes downstone slope . to pomeroy center around may and it makes a brand-new connection down to westlake plaza in daly city before going up to daly city park and ultimately top of the hill and our mission. providing essential connections both for jobs but also for

shopping opportunities. and we were able to make all these connections, we knew that we needed to get service up and running back inthis part of the city . making these connections but we also had to do it under some operating constraints so we were able to make these changes while saving the few buses so really the question now is do we go back to the old operatin , how we did the 57 previously which isdefinitely on thetable , connecting it back up . but that will mean a trade-off in regards to frequency on the rest of the line. additionally, the 3548 we made changes to the 48 three covid. it went kind of on a route to the hill so you noted the lines there on grandview and it went down to douglas and austin, luke beforeconnecting back to 24th street .

during the covid period we took the straight down, left of diamond and right on 24th. that change is saving us about six minutes in travel time and overall reliability for 48 is approved by about 20 percent. but obviously it comeswith some trade-offs . especially for residents and transit riders in the grandview douglas thompson area because that's relatively or not even relatively, that's a huge part of town so we modified the 35, took up most of that alignment so that people were still connected to transit service in the meantime but this also is another set of changes that definitely has trade-offs and something that we want to hear from the public as well as policymakers on the right path forward here and then that brings us to the third one i want to talk about before

getting into the pacific 2022 scenario which is the j church. as you all heard from some commenters at the beginning, the j now stops on the surface. our number one goal through the pandemic and at the beginning of thepandemic was improving subway performance . we knew during the pandemic where being in an enclosed space was not good for transmission, we wanted to reduce the amount of ways the subway had and as you remember i'm sure pre-pandemic you could wait five, six, seven minutes to get between powell and embarcadero on the best days due to congestion and thesubway . we knew we needed to make that smoother. we were removed the j from the subway and found some pretty

positive results from a technical standpoint. as the caller mentioned earlier we did look at travel time between 30th and church and embarcadero. you compare that travel time pre-pandemic to this current service plan which of course is the transfer of church we found that thecurrent service plan saves about six minutes of travel time on average . that includes time to transfer from the service down to the subway.additionally we also were able to improve the reliability of that trip. pre-pandemic 68 percent of trips from 30th and church took over 40 minutes to get down to embarcadero and currently the current scenario is taking 30 percent. trips take over 40 minutes. so we do think there's improvements for j writers. of course we're at a big and

obvious cost which is that those writers now have to transfer. that is not as you've heard with the passion and input from people already, i'm sure you'll hear more through the comment period after thispresentation but that's really no small trade-off . what we provide is important transit, it makes your trip much easier from a technological standpoint but we are seeing improvements. we're seeing him pretty impressive improvements and i will say not only is the j getting better but the subway in general and is operating much better in the subway. we're seeing about 20 percent improvement in subway reliability and a drastic reduction in the ways of the subway.these are all things to consider as we consider the

20/20 to plan and the j is included and we put the j back into the subway. that brings us to the discussion aboutthe scenarios themselves . all three of the previous slides i just went over so the 48, the j and the 2357 are included in all three of these service buckets and once again we're doing on those individually but they're all included in these buckets. but there are some changes and some drastic differences between the various scenarios. as i noted previously were now runningabout seven , where about 75 percent of service and this is at the beginning of school. so our last service change was directed towards increasing coverage and also getting ready for school and making sure that the system could handle all the

school trips that were taking place. and so with that change we're not about as i noted previously about 75 percent or so of the pre- covid service hours and about 98percent of residents in the city are within a couple blocks of transit service . i would note that as far back as january about 100 percent of our muni equity neighborhoods had transit service within a couple blocks of all those neighborhoods. we've building on that idea and are now in point i can say what do we do about frequency and access as we move forward now that we have a base coverage throughout the system . sobecause of that we develop alternatives and three buckets . and this just kind of gives a general quick overview of those

three buckets. so we have three lines. the familiar scenario, the frequent, the familiar scenario which puts back the seven lines that we just discussed or noted are running today which are specifically the 2, 3, b6, the 10, the 21, the 28 and 47 those are the seven lines that are not currently running all day as they were pre-pandemic late so in a familiar scenario we recall theselines back into service but those frequent scenarios , then it's two of those lines intoservice but then with the others , redistributes those resources to make more frequent service on the adjacent coroners and in the hybrid scenario it connects and i want to point out that

these scenarios or buckets are purposefully different and wide-ranging because the idea is to try to get discussion and value statements aboutwhat the system should look like . what do people want us to focus on? what should early 20/20 to look like? do we focus on frequency or on access? and what's important as the city continues to recover from pre-pandemic or post pandemic should i say era? i want to point out there are somesimilarities in all three buckets . for one, the 28th are is going to be coming back or be back in operation and in august or excuse me, in early 2022 as well as the 10 townsend. we are planning to extend all

three options, the 43 currently before heading into thepresidio . we would extend the 43 into the presidio then out to the arena andall three options .so here's some maps to show a littlebit more specifically what we're talking about . this first map is the familiar alternative much like the map i showed you earlier. the blue lines are in service right now and the green lines are those timelines that are not operating that would be back in operation in early 2022. this next map shows that kind of frequent alternative and you can see that of course theblue lines are in operation. the green lines like 28 are , the 10townsend an extension of the 43 , those lines are back

into service. and then the goal lines here which are the 2, the 3, the 6, the 21 and the47 are in bold . signifying that they would not be in service in early 2022 but instead those resources would be puts where the orange or actually i guess the more pink outlines are on the lines so for example for 21 you could see the 21 valley is in gold both the five folding and the seven eight are in pink because they would get higher frequency on that of the corridor to have service to haynes valley. finally the hybrid alternative is kind of a mixed up two ideas. taking through the 21 example here as well, you can see that the 21 is a white green line here because it actually would

only go as far as market street and it would terminate market so we would go back and forth as opposed to its fall line that went all the way downtown and we would it's these extra resources and put it into the five so you can seethe five is a pink color . so you know, why are we having thisdiscussion ? it's really because there's kind of three things that transit riders really find important according to our writer survey that we take every few years but the most frequently mentioned and highest scoring in the survey isreliability service, frequency of service and access to destinations . the reliability portion of that discussion is being addressed through a program and the temporary mercy transit lanes program but this process is really more about the service

and where do we extend service to impact the most frequency and access to destinations and wears the sweet spot in there where we are covering asmuch as we can also providing frequent service ? >> clerk: shawn, i'm so sorry to interrupt but i'm getting notes that sfgov tv is not able to stream your slide presentation. i however see it and i'm not sure how many can see it. if you can keep that in mind that folks may not be able to see your slides. >> caller: thank you. >> chair: i know i can see them, i'mnot sure why sfgov tv is not picking it up . >> i see them to. >> on page 50 right now. somecan see it and some cannot . the ticket is inand we're working through that in the

background . >> chair: maybe you can call up the number of people on sfgov.org. this presentation is listed under item 11 and maybe you can call up the slack people can follow along if they don't see it. >> we are on slide 16 and it is entitled access to frequent transit and essentially the bar graph showing having the hybrid network and how people are or residence within a quarter-mile of five-minute service, 6 to 10 minute service for any type of service sold more than 10

minute service. and what it shows is that under the frequent network for example one of the trade-offs is that in the frequent network of about 42 percent or so of the residents of the city of san francisco are within a few blocks of better service. one of the hybrids and familiar, it'sroughly 30 or 35 percent . so anywhere 8 to 10 percent or so fewer people within a five minute service, within a couple blocks of their house. we wanted to show this graphically and so we went through looking at several different iterations of origins and destinations and specifically the map that's up there now on slide 17 shows connectionsto jobs and education . and this. >> this map as a base it says

okay, if we were to give the frequent network how many more people or how many more people in our origins would be able to get to a job or education land-use within the same half hour travel time period. basically what it's showing you is where access is and where can people based on the frequency , where can people get earlier and access more jobs and more education and thisthat map , the green denotes better access or more frequent access and the brown, theirsmattering of brown you can see there, that's worse access . you can see from the jobs and educationstandpoint under the frequent concepts , the western addition of mission, tenderloin and northern van ness

neighborhoods can have a better access to jobs and the location then they would under the familiar and then there's brown spots early out in thegolden gates heights area as well as a few along the our mission area . he also did the same look looking at thehybrid scenario versus the familiar scenario . and this map on slide 18 shows jobs and education from the hybrid concept essentially showing that kind of northern van this area that has worse access to jobs and education. there's still a little bit of pertinent and western addition in the tenderloin areas but under the hybrid concept, it's a lot in comparison once again to familiar networks. we looked at a number of different metrics but another

one i wanted to highlight one more for you all here which is on slide 19 which is connection to medical facilities and once again youcan see thefrequent concepts , painted the mission, western addition , tenderloin area have more access. i should say quicker access to medical facilities than they do and the frequent concepts and the same thing, we looked at the hybrid concept which is the familiar concept in access to medical facilities on slide 20. and also shows still some green slots on mission as well as in the tenderloin and western michigan and soma itself. that was just trying to give a little bit of context to what we say when we mean access and

frequency and you can get closer to some land uses under a more frequent concepts but you can maybe access also is just as important from looking at the familiar concept and staying closer to where you know those services are going but also it's an important consideration. so communityoutreach, we are obviously in the middle of a ton of community outreach . you can go to sfmta.com to find a story map as well as information including access to a survey that we have online to get information.we're holding virtual open houses and our first one was last saturday . we've got two more upcoming, onetomorrow evening and another one on thursday . additionally we also have some office hours where you can drop in and virtually drop in i should say and ask detailed questions about the different alternatives and things.

we are breathing key stakeholders. we've had i think over 25 meetings with key stakeholders in the last few weeks and having another 30 or so left to go . we've posted a number of locations around the city with information on how to come to this meeting but also just our outreach in general, emails and blogs to different people. and specifically a couple of highlights from2022 , as of september 15 on the community outreach side we've had about 1600 surveys that have been completed. we're actuallyup to over 2000 now surveys that have been completed . we had over 20stakeholder meetings . we posted 650 stopsaround the system .we have gone to a number of neighborhoods festivals and meetings including the autumn moon

festival where we had over 100 people, surveys taken and we sent out emails and text notices once again , in the earlier public comment there seemed to be a real feeling or an understanding that some had already made up our mind for this was a fake process but nothing could be further from the truth. we really do want to understand how the people of san francisco want to best be served. when you get more than two people in a room let alone 700,000 it's hard to cometo consensus on a specific item . so we're out looking and we know there's no such thing as consensus with these kind of trade-offs but we do want to have an open and honest dialogue and do want to know how things are impacting people

and how they are related to the system. we are trying our darndest to reach as many people as possible and to hear from as many people as possible and really want to hopefully the second half of this meeting we are excited because we want to hear what the board has to say and what they think about it but also just general public comment and hearing more from our friends and the city that we serve. just a quick little bit on outreach timeline. obviously we're here with the informationaloverview . i know it was only an informational item being made. today we will continue our outreach and we've got a couple things coming up this week but over the next month and a half we will be in active outreach for that time. do plan to come back to the mta board october 7 and at that point we would ask the board to make some final decisions or

approval actions. and really specifically those approval actions on the title vi approval of the service plan as well as the sql approval and alegislative changes that need to be made like parking removal in order tomake a service plan happen . next steps , you know, ikind of went through some of these already . we're continuing outreach and coming back to the board december 7. assuming we do get approval by september 7. going through the process of getting those in the schedule. having operator signage and actually implement in the middle of the february 2022 is the currenttimeline . what we're talking about is at the same time, we continue to talk both to the public and

stakeholders about what the second half of 2022 would look like and what we can provide you with additional resources and additional funds. as we look to the future and look to get the city back up on its proverbial feet and back to serving people like we know we need to and i just want to reiterate and i didn't say at the beginning we know the pre- covid service was not the best service out there. this city is a world-class city and deserves a world-class transit system and we know we can improve on what we were offering three covid so we're hoping we're going to come out of this post covid with not only a better service but even more service than what we had pre- covid and deliver to the

city what it deserves which is rolled classtransit system . with that i will turn it over to the directors for questions and look forward to discussion. >> chair: thank you. before i open it up to public comment, did the director have any clarifying questions about what the acts they would like to direct to mister kennedy? director eaken. >> thank you somuch . just to add with any scenario planning process , typically we in the public would get to look at the performance metrics across the different scenarios to understand how they performed. soi'm just wondering, i'm not sure if i saw anywhere on the slide . it sounds like they are all the same cost in terms of the total number of writers or riders of

different incomes or destinations, frequency, the cost of providing an hour of service. how will we be able to understandthe way these different scenarios perform ? >> that's what we were getting atwith these access maps and understanding how service in general was being provided . you're getting into kind of the forecasting and modeling process of these different scenarios. >>. [please stand by]

or do we put those back on some of the lines that are not currently running and that's the crux of the situation. we continually and always monitor our service and so as we put service back into circulation, we'll be looking at ridership and data and making adjustments moving forward for sure from that standpoint. we're not planning to model, quote, unquote, or do a regional modelling effort on these three alternatives.

and really, i would say one more thing, we're not -- i mean, i feel -- these buckets were created to have this discussion about access versus frequency and the trade-offs related therein. but you know, these aren't, like, pick one of the service plans off the shelf and this is the one that we're going to implement. i really feel like at the end of the process, it's going to be a mix of all three of buckets is what we end up proposing based on the feedback and discussions we have. so, it would kind of not even be i think a little disingenuous as much running a scenario -- a forecasting effort on one of these three, because i don't think any one of those three is actually going to come out of the process. >> thank you.

>> director lai: thank you, chair borden. thank you, sean, for the presentation. a lot of information. i'll start off by asking, you know, obviously, we're talking about just the 2022 service restoration, which is essentially going up from the 75% to the 85% service mark. could you clarify, let's say if the board chooses to go with the hybrid or the frequent alternatives versus the full restoration alternative, does it mean that we will not restore the rest of the lines between the 85% to the 100% service levels? >> no. no, it does not mean that. basically what it means is with the resources like you noted, the 85% level resources, you know, we would restore what bucket, what lines you're talking about, but that doesn't

preclude restoring other lines in the future when we have more resources. >> okay. thank you for that. although, it doesn't seem like we have a timeline for that yet. so, i also want to clarify -- and thank you for clearly putting on the record that staff is not pushing for any specific option here versus the three that you presented, the hybrid, frequent or restoration. or as staff calls it -- [indiscernible] could you just, again, state though the lines that we're proposing perhaps not for a current 2022 restoration, have we as an agency already made determinations about eliminating them in the long run? because i know there is confusion out there about that. >> yeah, thank you for the question. and the answer to that is no. we are, you know, like i said,

we're, a, totally open to restoring all of the lines right now. but even if not, we're not -- we're not, you know, abandoning or not, you know, not implementing lines for the future. this is really about what is going to winter 2022 look like and when we get more dollars and more funding then we can have the discussion about what does that look like and what kind of lines can we put out then, too. so we do not have any plans for elimination of any specific lines at this point. >> okay. meaning you don't personally have -- i mean, as an agency, sfmta has not put out our own preferred option? there is no such thing as a preferred option? >> no. >> okay, great. i'm going to turn to some of the items that informed your

presentation, meaning it is some of the base information that you were taking from, past ridership survey as well as the ongoing survey that is mentioned, that survey is live for about another month. could you talk a little bit about, based on our actual ridership, versus demographic response that we get? how representative is our -- on the ridership on our system? >> that is a great question. we can tabulate for that -- that for you. i don't have that off the top of my head. but we do have -- kate mccarthy can chime in if she's on -- but we can tabulate that for you. i don't have that right now off the top of my head. but, of course, we'll definitely

have that tend of the survey, but we can do a midpoint look and see if we're missing demographics and focus our effort on those communities. >> great, thank you. and then i have a question turning to the survey again. i notice that some of the questions, they're phrased in -- obviously, we're all faced with very difficult decision points here, because we're trying to work within the reality of the fiscal constraint that we have. you know, this conversation that you're putting forward is simply on working within the resources we have, not the policy decision whether we should turn to expand our resources. that seems to be a different conversation. but i'm curious if you could just maybe help me understand, you know, why we are perhaps comparing, you know, something

like distance to stock? and comparing that against time at stop. that's one of the first questions in the survey. i'm asking this, because in the complex conversation that the board has to consider, you know, understand we have to make trade-offs, but trade-offs are not binary, right? there is a whole slew of options we're considering here. could you specifically help me understand why we're comparing distance and time specifically? those two characteristics? >> sure. great question. so, the basic crux of what we're trying to get at and the kind of, i guess, trade-off that we're trying to ask both you, the board, but also the riding public in general, is, you know, would you -- it's more important for you to -- is it more important for you to walk out of your house and see a bus show up every 20 minutes, or is it more

important for you to have to walk a few more extra blocks, but have service more frequently? so the idea is, like if you took the 21 for example. midday, 21 frequency was 12 minutes, so if we did the familiar network, we proposed putting the 21 back at a 12-minute headway. meanwhile, the frequent alternative says, okay, that's one option. the other option is we don't put the 21 back, you walk two blocks up to mcallister and the 5 will come every five minutes instead of every eight minutes. so, is that something that you find interesting or not? and so, what we're really trying to get at is, you know, what type of transit system do people want? do we want to be, you know, the familiar operated pre-pandemic, which is nothing wrong with that.

or do they want us to use the scarce resources on making some trips a lot more frequent and a lot more easier to catch a bus? that's the crux of where we're trying to get people to weigh in and that's the point of those questions. >> director lai: thank you. thank you, chair, i'm done with my questions for now.

-- folks can call. and we have staff answering calls and the cool thing about that line is it's connected to our language line, so those who are non-english speakers, will be able to take the survey that way. we also are partnering with community-based organizations where we're providing paper surveys and having people take them that way. we're also in the festival,

those in chinatown and clement street and we're doing pop-ups so we're able to collect people's information that way. in person, over the phone and online are the primary ways. we've made the survey acceptable in six languages and then, again, people can call and take the survey through any number of languages. >> thank you. thank you, chair. >> thank you. >> director heminger: thank you, madame chair. sean, i first wanted to thank you for sending me the chart that basically listed all the routes out and their current levels of ridership. and i think it was fy20 and 21. i would encourage you to distribute that to my colleagues, because i think it's great information that would be helpful for all of them to see. i had a couple of questions and then i've got some things to say

time permitting at the end of this. the first question is, when you strip down the system after covid struck and created what you called the core network, what criteria did you use? >> great question. so we had really four criteria that we utilized to make that initial jump to the core network. one, if you recall -- and this goes back a ways, so you might not recall -- there was about a two-week period where the mayor had implemented or instituted her stay-at-home order that we continued to run full service. so, we had all of our buses out there in operation. we had all of the trains going for about two weeks and at the two-week mark, we drastically cut back service.

we had about two weeks of data to look at. so, one of the data points we used was where was our ridership still? where were people still using the system? about 70% of our kind of post mayor directive ridership was on those 17 lines. so that was one thing that kind of pointed us into that direction. we also looked at land uses and essential land uses specifically, so hospitals, neighborhood commercial, because we could tell how ridership was responding that people were not obviously taking it downtown any more. they were taking it to the safeway, the local grocery store down the street. so we wanted to make sure that the neighborhood core commercial areas were still covered. and then we also -- so we were looking at hospitals as well as, you know, core neighborhood commercial areas and then lastly, we looked at our equity strategy both lines and

neighborhoods. and used the essential trips and understanding where our essential trip workers were and we know that through our equity strategy work. and understanding those neighborhoods. so that was kind of the third and fourth criteria looking at essential trips as well as trips of workers and understanding where that service was needed. >> director heminger: well, i think to piggy back on director eaken's line of questioning here. i think we're going to serve ourselves well to the extent we -- we call those things out and we are explicit about what criteria we're using to make the decisions we're making. because otherwise, what you hear from a lot of people is the fix is in or they just did what they wanted, because if you don't have a common set of assumptions

that everybody buys into, this can just turn into a giant negotiating session. as you say, negotiating among 700,000 people is not a lot of fun. so i would encourage you to think about that. and it sounds to me like the criteria you used for the core network, at least in crude terms, is a good start at having those performance outcomes. the second question -- and this is a term of art i know -- comprehensive operational analysis, or c.o.a. i believe that several bay area transit properties as well as others around the country have done these things. they're pretty elaborate, you know, zero-based budgeting exercises as i understand them. has muni ever done one of those? >> it's a great question. i have not been involved of one. but i'll refer to the director

of transit. julie, do you want to answer that? >> hi. not that i'm aware of. >> director heminger: well, look, that's good information to have, because i do think one of the perceptions we're going to have to fight is that the familiar network, the network that was there wasn't necessarily there for a whole lot of good solid reasons, but may have just been created over time into what we had at the time of the pandemic. and that is one of the reasons that i'm concerned about featuring familiarity too much in this work. or in other words, giving familiarity too great of a value. speaking for myself. because i think where we're

starting from is not necessarily where we would have started from if we had done a comprehensive analysis or if we had a lot of underlying planning behind the network that we're operating today. the last question i had -- and i think this is a tough one to answer -- so since our director is back, if he wants to take a crack at it or not. you know, i think we've been talking about today a whole lot of things that wouldn't have been out of place for us talking about 15 years ago, in terms of where you want to put the service and how many locations do you want to access and what kind of time savings do you want to receive. but i think we all know that one of the big challenges we've got in front of us is still that we're in a pandemic, that there is a sizeable portion of our

former ridership who isn't either going to work by choice or is afraid of getting on the bus. and i think we need to find some way to come to grips with that. and you can't model it, but i think we've got to talk about specific ideas that might reassure folks about getting on the bus. you know, our mask compliance is very good, but it's not 100%. and when you've got a big system and you're at 95%, you still got a noticeable number of people -- and all it takes is one guy on one bus to scare several people off for a good long time. we have no connection with vaccination and getting on the vehicle. whether or not the federal government is going to confront that with air travel, they've started talking about it. i don't know. so, look, i don't have the answer on this one, i just

wanted to raise the question about how and to what extent we should take into account the sort of public health and safety question that is looming large over this sort of normal transit planning debate? >> so, thank you for that, director hemminger. obviously, that is a huge issue we're all having to contend with. it's not just covid safety, it's also personal security which is of particular concern from -- especially our pacific islander riders, but also a broad array of people. things are challenging out there in san francisco right now. so these are issues that are foremost in our minds. it's one of the reasons why you've had presentations from our director of security, kimberley burris about our approach to security. it's why we're continuing to

follow the covid health safety protocols, even ones that are not necessarily medically recommended anymore, because we're not only dealing with needing to protect people from transmitting covid, but also to deal with fears of an invisible enemy. and people make decisions, not based upon science, but based upon their emotions. so we are struggling with this as is every other transit property in the united states. our key conclusion is that transit is, in fact, safe and what our riders seem to be responding to is not a lot of finger-wagging or messages telling people that transit is safe, but rather delivering excellent service. as we look at our own ridership, the lines where our ridership is highest is the lines where we

have invested in speed, reliability and frequency. so we're going to continue to do both. we're going to continue to protect people's health. we're going to message that transit is safe and secure and invest in different approaches to security, but our primary focus, as always, is to deliver the best possible quality service we can with the resources that we've got available. and also to learn from global examples of what works for the other topics as well. it's one reason why i'm glad we're continuing our weekly calls with the bay area general managers as well as my ongoing contact with our global peers to learn from success all over the world. >> director heminger: well, look, i realize these really, you can't totally separate these questions, because to the extent that we can be successful in growing ridership, let's say with the frequent service alternative, that can help reassure people that the bus is safe. hey, look, there are a lot of guys on the bus.

so, i just didn't want us to forget that piece, because i just think it's going to continue -- it's going to be with us for not days or weeks, but years. especially the change in work and the extent to which that is going to bring new demands on our system as well. >> that work is our greatest concern right now. our ridership is high for almost all trips except trips to the financial district. those office buildings are mostly vacant and while we're expecting them to become occupied, the data from the controllers office as well as the bay area council of surveys of downtown employers suggest that even employers who are expecting to bring their employees back next year are only expecting them to work three days a week. which means a 40% loss of

downtown office-based travel, which will result in a significant loss of our highest paying passengers. office travelers. they're a major source of our transit fare revenue. they're also a major source of our parking revenue. we expect our covid-related losses will continue at least through 2025 based on all the data we'ven received so far. >> great. if there are no further questions from directors, we're going to open up to public comment. this is your chance now to speak on item 11. what priorities we should make. if you've spoken already on the topic, this is not the time to call in. so, with that, moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> first speaker, please.

>> hi, good afternoon. jack lipton in district 6. i just want to echo everything in the letter from the transit riders and emphasize this sentence. sfmta needs to be building trust with the public in order to pass needed transit funding not undermining it with a rushed process. we need a plan for the restoration of 100% pre-pandemic service hours. i completely understand we can't get there overnight and i don't believe the network should be frozen in amber, but it's one thing to ask someone walking a little farther if it means freeing up resources, but what you're doing here is asking people to walk a little farther, if they're even able to, to balance the budget. and making muni service worse is not a strategy to get a vote. there is so much acrimony over the process and fundamentally it's because there is no one in leadership.

the mayor, the board of supervisors, director tumlin has never explained a plan that will get us back to transit service. i know you care deeply and none of you signed up to cut service. but we have all these policies, transit first, vision zero, 80% load share. every one of them says we need more transit, not less. so we're going in the wrong direction and there is no public visible leadership from anyone in the city to turn it around and get the funding we need. you have an army that will fight with you. i'd far rather be spending my time collecting signatures or campaigning for a ballot measure. help us advocate for what you need. but it doesn't make sense to be planning transportation 2050 when we don't even have a plan to get back to transportation 2019. thank you.

>> next speaker. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. it's bob. i want to point out that what staff has been feeding you is incomplete partial biased information especially regarding the j. line and the lack of restoration. you're hearing well all this is temporary just for winter 22. but, that also means the fix can be in in the sense of people getting accustomed to whatever provisions you make in december. whatever decisions you make are going to be based on all the complimentary statements to staff now about their plan options. the j. riders are still going to be stranded. you hear, it's faster, but for whom? then after multiple times asking what sort of survey did you do to measure the transfer time from the j. at church and market

or church and debows to another line, then we hear, oh, yeah, you did it. you don't tell us who. was it able bodied staff? was it one person in a wheelchair? did you include people with babies in strollers? did you include people with walkers? the variety of people who take the j. or the 6 or the 21 need to be included in any planning. and i bring up those lines because here again the 21 serves st. mary's hospital. ada requires calling out major destinations of which st. mary's is one. to say you can go up and downhill is ludicrous. that serves the campus when it's not in the eastern part of the city, people have to make multiple transfers instead of just taking the six directly. you're biassing the information you're giving by this lack of responsiveness. that does not lead to building

trust. and public comment is important despite what one of your board members said on september 8 about not wanting to think public comment was worthwhile. bye. >> next speaker, please. . >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> move to a different line maybe. hello. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is happenny. i'm a 10-year-old in excelsior and i would like to know if sfmta has set up donation sites yet? if you have, please tell us where they are. and if you haven't, please get that set up soon.

also, please make the 43 go all the way to excelsior again -- presidio again, sorry. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> yeah, this is herbert winer speaking. i wish to see 100% restoration of pre-pandemic transportation system. there is no excuse for not doing this. and as far as this rationale, well, it's only 2-3 blocks walk to the bus stop, they are long blocks. have you tried to negotiate that on a walker? a wheelchair? a cane? have you ever been on oxygen? h.i.v.? or have arthritis? this is very cruel to seniors and the disabled. it's an attack on seniors and

the disabled. this is senior and disabled cleansing. we are 20% of the population and we deserve respect in our golden years. don't you dare cut service like that. we want 100% restoration and that should be the case. not to do 100% restoration would be waking up with a black eye in winter of 2020. you have the responsibility to do this. now, if you say there is a lack of funding, well, that's your responsibility to get it. that's what you're paid for. so, please restore 100% restoration of service, otherwise, you know, service will get progressively worse, which has happened over the last 10 years. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is kathy de lucca and i work for community living campaign a non-profit that works with seniors and adults with disabilities. i'm here to share how inaccessible the outreach for the 2022 network has been with these populations. the quick time frame is prohibitive for many of the initial outreach is one month and then we get one month to comment on the initial outreach. and who is being reached during the first month when the plans are most open? not the seniors or folks with disabilities that i work with. for example, i work with residents who live in the

housing development. most of the scheduled open houses and office hours for initial input are going to be over by this thursday and they were only just announced a little over two weeks ago. there is no way folks in this housing complex could have been reached in time to participate. and that's not fair and that's not inclusive. the other day i was on a conference call with seniors in the bayview. when i told them about the plans, they asked how do we participate? i spent the rest of the phone call reading offer the call in numbers and the pass codes for all the public meetings. i found that information by going page through page through your website. there is not one place. that is unjust. i haven't even touched on how confusing the three plans are for the general public and how flawed the survey is. it's time to put on the brakes and start over. sfmta should restore muni to pre-pandemic 100% service levels

and then, only then, truly and deeply engage the community in a real discussion about the future of muni before any lines are changed. that is the only just way forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> i'm stacy. and i live in potrero hills. they take muni. it's an hour on muni one way which is where my son goes to high school, and plays soccer. i find this entire process is coming from a broken point of view, simply building upon our acknowledged insufficient system is not good enough. working within resources and

having one fight over another. distance, stops, service, tradeoffs. is there a single car driver in this town that has to think about this? if you have access to a vehicle, can go anywhere you want. and for most of the city, it's free. no one is waiting five, eight, 15 minutes for their car to start. they just get in and go. our state and this planet are burning and this process pours gasoline upon it within an austerity approach. that's events restore lines, plan new ones. optimize from there. build lrt and a bike network now. then increasing the rates to reflect the value of the land. if you need help pricing that, feel free to use the assessment

for the tiny lot that our home is built upon. instead, make driving difficult and expensive. that is what a world class city does. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> moderator, perhaps you can go to the next line. >> you have 9 questions remaining. >> hello, this is david woo with the haight ash bury council in district 5 and i fully support restoring all previous muni lines and sfmta has not yet

committed to reopening the six parnassus or the 21 hayes and ask that these lines be restored immediately and reopened. they serve many institutions and neighborhoods and sfmta's own figures show that 70% of the riders of these lines are low-income people who cannot afford another form of transportation. and both lines form part of the muni equity strategy and are in the top 15 lines in providing service to senior and disabled community members. so we really need to open -- reopen the 6 and 21 lines immediately. followed by and with the other lines as well. but really asking to take into consideration equity and also our elders and folks with

disabilities, thank you. >> thank you. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> good afternoon, directors. this is cat carter with san francisco transit riders. as stated in the letter to you, we have several concerns with the proposals. while a lot of the data is compelling we need to remember that muni is a complex system that serves a wide variety of people. and not only serve the majority. muni also has underlying grid pattern to serve most cross town trips with one transfer. we want to strengthen that grid, not weaken it. as the 2 and the 23 all the way to the beach. the outreach time and effort is too abbreviated considering staff hasn't been able to put forward the plans that are

allegedly coming and we don't have materials prepared as kathy de lucca clearly described. it doesn't provide a way for riders to give feedback or explore the trade-offs. while some proposals like the 49 rapid make sense, others pit riders against riders and too many have lived without their service for too long. while a five-minute network is appealing, it's -- represents a 20% increase in capacity, we're not convinced it's the right trade-off if it means moving service on other routes. none of the three plans proposed provide sufficient service. we know the conclusion is to get more funding. we look forward to continuing with you and elected leaders in securing that needed funding. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> you have nine questions remaining. >> hi, this is sheila thompson, a resident of district 8. i wanted to urge the board to restore muni to full service, pre-pandemic levels. as someone who lives in noe valley, three of the four lines to us have been altered. the 35, the 48 and the j., making it more difficult to get around the city. myself and many of my neighbors have chosen where to live and work based on muni locations and that has been severely impacted as we get back to real life post pandemic. i also speak for my elderly neighbors who are less able to attend virtual meetings like this and certainly less able to adjust to new service levels. i additionally wanted to call out damon curtis who has been

incredibly helpful to the neighbors on clipper street in helping to address our many concerns about pedestrian and bike safety on clifford street. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> hi, my name is julia. i'm a resident of district 5. i was calling about the restoration of the 6 up to ash bury heights. i'm curious, this was tried to be eliminated a number of years ago. there was a huge effort. there is a lot of community participation and it was decided not to eliminate that portion mainly because of the large hill between ash bury -- between haight and up to frederick. they say that the 33 is available, which is a great line, however, it is very inconsistent. wive waited up to -- i've waited up to 30 minutes and considering

the issues going on in haight, find it unsafe, especially at night to be expected to wait in that area in order to get up to frederick. but i'm most curious about what happened and if anyone is looking at the information that came from all the meetings that happened around the 6? changing the 6 route a number of years ago and was decided against it. and, yeah, thank you very much for your work. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> good afternoon. this is edward nason from district 8 and the j church covid subway shutdown issues were deemed temporary to truncate the j at market. this evolved to permanent status with an enhanced streetscape between market and 15.

the walking transfer to the subway requires crossing the northbound j church switch tracks located in the crosswalk. tracks are especially slippery during rainy weather, a real safety hazard. the existing original train control system never achieved the 100 train sets per hour specification. subway performance is now in the mid 30 train sets per hour. several more j trains an hour will be below the pandemic subway capacity. system frequency and speed performance prioritize the needs of the young able bodied patrons. equity consideration of the elderly and disabled in inclement weather and nighttime transfers are seriously not considered. i think we should restore the j

and also restore the muni service to basic services and then let's figure out what is going to happen in the future after the pandemic. thank you. >> thank you, mr. mason. >> just a note to anyone who is calling in. if you are also have us on in the background, you might want to mute either the television or the computer because it causes an echo and with the delay, it can be confusing. next speaker. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> hi. this is david goldman. i'm a long-term resident of san francisco since 1973. a homeowner since 1977. and i live in district 8. and i am 70 years old. my husband is 75 years old and he is h.i.v. positive. and we live on fixed incomes and we would like to see full

restoration of muni service to pre-pandemic levels, especially but not exclusively adding the j back downtown, adding full service on the 35, the 21, the 2, the 23 and the 6. we use the j and the 35 regularly from our neighborhood in district 8. and the transfer at church and market to the j is fraught with peril for seniors like me and my husband, especially as rainy weather. the tracks are slippery. i can attest to that. i've lived in the neighborhood since 1973. one of the things that you need to understand is that it becomes a vicious circle. if you lower muni services to -- and don't bring them back to pre-pandemic levels, then you're going to have a vicious circle of fewer and fewer people using it because the system is less reliable and less frequent as

they were used to in the past. that will lead to less and less fare revenue because of less and less patronage. the way to bring back people to using muni, to bring back funding is to fully restore pre-pandemic levels on all the muni line. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> yes, hello, my name is paul wormer. and i wanted to talk a little bit by guess my concern -- about my concern of the values of the services is judged. i hear a lot about headways and faster transit, but i look for example of something like the 43, which provides a service from the southeast of the city through the presidio and to fort mason.

and what this means is, you've got a bus that is providing excellent service to youth, services youth programs through the parks conservancy in the presidio as well as the arts and culture center at fort nason. take way the 43, and people will drive. and if they can't drive because they're youth, that's tough, you can't make i want to the cultural event. similarly, the proposal to eliminate the 2 and the 3, because after all, you can just walk to geary or walk to california. ignores the fact that between gough and buchanan, it's a higher density of senior housing. and on sutter, the other side of buchanan, west side of buchanan, the jccnc provides a lunch

service for low-income seniors and large numbers of low-income asian attend. the 2 and 3 are excellent service there. so, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. next speaker, please. moderator, can you go to another line? >> you have six questions remaining. >> hi, this is trisha. i wanted to kind of make some notes around or give comments around the importance of data driven decision-making. some of the challenges that my neighbors and i have faced is really trying to understand how

to navigate changes and try to understand what data was used to move the lines during the covid emergency order. but, you know, similar to what director heminger said, we really would request that your decision-making be data driven and when constituents like myself requested those data, we would like to understand where those data are, what are the surveys. we would also like the methodology to be found. some of the data that we've been chatting through in terms of time and frequency, a lot of that stuff was done during the shelter in place order, so there is going to be some time savings. and when you do provide the data, which we should be able to get, you know. you guys are well versed in data

collection and analysis, when you do provide the data, comparisons should be amples apples. residents, inclusivity of all levels, not just people that can access online. some of the people in my neighborhood don't have access to a lot of, you know -- they don't have access to mst or online. and they're really distraught about this. and lastly, you know, some of your surveys i looked at online are just really don't get at the heart of what people need. time and frequency doesn't support pedestrian safety, bike safety, traffic conditions. those are things that people are really concerned about right now. so, just a note to -- if people ask you for data, just provide it. and have a rationale and get

feedback on it from your constituents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. next speaker, please. moderator, go to a different line? >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi, i live in noe valley and i want to comment on the j church. i'm not going to make the same comments that everybody else made. they apply, i agree. i just wanted to say that i lived in the neighborhood for 28 years and i've taken muni, the j downtown, and it was normally pre-pandemic it would be take about 45 minutes. now it's taking clearly more than an hour. i know someone here mentioned 40

minutes, but i haven't experienced that. i experienced significant delays in the tunnel. and when the k train arrived, it was packed which didn't make me feel safe as far as social distancing is concerned. i wanted to add, too, even if efficiency was happening, people change trains at market, it poses a lot of hardship. again, people with disabilities, seniors, have to cross streets as we talked about. i also wanted to mention that by the time the k train comes, it's generally overcrowded, so there are no seats for disabled people that are left. been waiting outside at market street in the dark is unsafe for everyone and i've experienced being accosted while waiting for the j at 8:30 at night. so i'm asking the sfmta not to ignore the safety of citizens and request for efficiency and restore the full service of the j. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> you have six questions remaining. >> hi, my name is lisa church. i'm a resident of d3 and muni is my main source of transportation in san francisco. i do want to see full service restored and i feel like the longer we don't do that, or the more we keep cutting back or holding back service changes, the more likely that is to become permanent without us really seeing that happen. the fact that configurations may change post covid is fine, i understand that. but we're not post covid yet, so i think we should bring back service. sfmta and the city should be focusing efforts on new permanent revenue streams. our current service is just an embarrassment and it doesn't feel like there is any effort to bring back a thriving transit system in san francisco.

just last, please end jared walker's contract as soon as you can. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hello. i live in district 1. i have two kids and i don't have a car. just a couple of comments about funding and outreach. any sort of road infrastructure, it seems like it's so easy to execute in san francisco, but when there is transit, bike or pedestrian projects, it's a super tough task. i know to get funding for the deficit is different than like say funding of a highway. but i would like to see the city put the money where their mouth is and fund transit in a way that can meet the needs of san franciscans. also, the outreach, the chang, the director said that meeting,

tumlin was at the webinar. really to do true outreach on the ground with referendum represented san franciscans. -- underrepresented san franciscans. sending out links to folks with a few san francisco languages in there, it doesn't cut it. you have to be on the ground. you have to meet with these organizations. you have to build relationships with folks. unfortunately, a quick outreach period is not emblematic of the needs at this moment. and it keeps emboldening itself with these processes. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you have six questions remaining. moderator, maybe go to the next line. >> you have five questions

remaining. >> hi. my name is lavender. i live in district 7. i'm a severely disabled person who does rely on muni to get around and i would like to see i would like to see the 6 parnassus restored because the 52 is not adequate. i have to make it to ucsf weekly. i've tried using the 52 to get there. there is not a real accessible way to get there. the transfer is not accessible. i took a 52 to forest hill to take the muni. the elevators are out at castro station. that's not acceptable. if the 6 was back, we could transfer at a single intersection by crossing a single crosswalk. i would love to urge you to aim to improve accessibility to everyone living in the city, rather than focusing on core lines that will see marginal

improvements at the expense of serving people who desperately need it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> hello. my name is alexander. i'm calling urging the sfmta board of directors to, one, focus on identifying new revenue streams rather than finding ways to completely butcher the existing service network. but also, two, to expand to conduct outreach for this 2022 service alternatives. because i'm one person in my community. i can do all the outreach i want to explain the alternatives to my fellow youths. none of them have heard anything

from the sfmta or sfusd about this. most of them didn't get any notice about the changes. hardly any of them know what the devil is going on with the service alternatives project. most of them don't even know it's an actual thing. so i ask and i implore you guys to extend the outreach process, especially to groups like youth, like people with disabilities and to include those people's feedback in a way that is not absolutely as -- like the most mis-- the most unorganized, the most ridiculous and the most useless survey that asks more about the demographics of the people answering it, than the service options that will affect people's lives. i'm going forward from early 2022. so i ask the board not only to reconsider this project and to make sure to find more revenue

streams and bring back all service, but to expand outreach to communities who have not had outreach from the agency. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon. i have my -- it affects my speech. if you can bear with me, i'll go forward. i urge the sfmta to restore the 21 hayes for people with mobility issues and seniors requires them to climb a steep hill. the cross streets are cold and are all deeply graded streets. seniors and people with mobility issues would have a hard time

making this trek to the top of lone mountain. thank you for listening and i yield my time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. this is scott feeney. i have significant concerns about how this survey is framed. it's not really up front about the fact that we're talking about a cut in the service we had pre-pandemic. the question that is being asked in the survey is would you like us to cut frequency, cut coverage, or cut frequency and coverage? it's being worded instead as if it's an improvement to service. improvement to service is stuff like the temporary emergency transit lanes, stuff like adding

signal preemptings. our climate goal as a city is to have 80% of our trips in low carbon mode by 2030. we have a long way to go because the actual was 47% in 2019. to achieve that goal, we need a lot more transit and a lot more frequency and high coverage, not to choose one or the other. to makes cuts makes it more difficult to change away from a car-centered transportation network, moves us backwards. and as a cyclist as well as a transit rider, it's difficult for me to advocate for bike lanes because people are going say, well, how can you take away my parking to put in a bike lane when you also took away my bus? when i first got to san francisco, i lived in ash bury heights and the transit i used was at parnassus. not only would the stop be removed under the alternatives, but the map in the survey and in

your slides actually doesn't even show the route going there. that's how sloppy it's been. i appreciated director lai calling -- referring to the full restoration alternative rather than the condescending frame offing the familiar alternative. i think it's right, we need full restoration and help us advocates fight for the funds you need to deliver that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> hi, can you hear me? great, okay. i haven't been to one of these in a while. now that i'm back in school. i wanted to talk about the service alternatives and then particularly like the service an

outreach around them. so just talking about the survey, i think a few other commenters have mentioned this. but it just doesn't allow for the public to provide any real feedback about the alternatives. as one caller put it, it asked more about demographics than the actual service changes. the other thing i want to talk about is the lack of outreach for other changes such as those made to the 23, the j, the 48, the 35. some of these changes i agree with, but when you don't have a real outreach process to hear from the community, it just kind of undermines -- >> we lost you, mr. miller. hello? moderator, we can go to another line and mr. miller can call back in. >> you have two questions

remaining. >> hello? moderator, maybe go to the next line? >> you have one question remaining. >> can you hear me now? it's david pilpel. on this item, i am deeply engaged in the mta muni 2022 network plan and preparing a detailed comment letter. the board of supervisors passed their resolution. file number 210820 seeking a restoration plan for the end of year. that plan is due by september 30th. i'm looking forward to seeing this in writing and not just by power point. there are both macro and micro issues here, all with fiscal

operational and policy implications. please post or send me the ridership chart that director heminger discussed and the transit riders letter that was referred to. there have been a few efforts like a comprehensive operational analysis in the late 1970s that was implemented in phases between 1979 and 1983 and adjusted throughout the 1980s and 1990s. and more recently the transit effectiveness project between 2005 and 2007. i would describe that as something like a comprehensive operational analysis. those are the two that i could point to that have occurred in my lifetime. considerations here should include operations and transit operators, transit supervision and reliability on the street. maintenance and their ability to deliver vehicles and maintain them every day.

and human resources. and implications there about hiring et cetera. access and equity should be defined here. coverage, frequency and -- thank you. and span are most important to me and they have different implications. it should not be about running or not running entire routes. there should be segment level analysis. that way, short routes can be longer routes making them better. areas like south of market, where long blocks and one-way streets exist, could see better route coverage as a result. and it is unfair to force unnecessary transfers and walking. we should restore at least weekend service on all routes and the j in the subway. >> thank you, mr. pilpel. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining.

>> can you hear me now? >> yes, i can. hello? great. thank you. as district 5 resident, forgive my lack of trust and cynicism regarding foregone conclusions as many of us have been on the trains before. most commission boards are a little more than rubber stamps in the city and there is little oversight of the mta except the mayor who appoints a director. given the great transit accomplishments, was cutting cost at stanford, you can mark me as skeptical. i'm hoping this commission is not a rubber stamp. i haven't spoken to you before. i have high hopes. further more, anybody who worked in social science knows that polls can be designed to elicit responses wanting. making decisions either don't take the bus at all or don't transfer lines as senior and youth are pushed aside on the planning. you keep saying downtown is not

a focus and yet mta has chosen to increase the 5 and 7 at the expense of the 6 and 21. two bus lines that connect neighborhoods as much as downtown. and why can't we have predictable but infrequent buses and frequent buses a couple of blocks away? staff talks about essential workers and yet they haven't returned bus lines at service hospitals and schools. as with every other speaker for the last two hours, i ask you to restore the familiar option, the 6 and 21 should have been activated yesterday when schools opened. it should not have to wait until 2022 and it's embarrassing as a city that we're even having this discussion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> yes, hi. my name is freddie martin. i'm a housing organizer with senior and disability action.

and, you know, my thoughts on this being a native san franciscan and working, being a person with disabilities myself and having on and off mobility issues where it could be really difficult just to make it across the street to the bus stop, i think all of the muni service should be restored to its normal schedule. what it was pre-covid. there hasn't been that many people that left, in fact, there's probably been an increase in amount of people in san francisco, especially those in need of public transportation who don't have cars or other means of getting around. i just -- it just doesn't make any sense to me to think that anything else will do. what some people take for granted or think, it's so easy just to walk to the bus stop or get on the bus or whatever, it's

really, really -- it could be something totally different for population that use other mobility aids or what not. and it's been difficult -- it's really difficult to get around, so i would like for sfmta to consider just restoring it fully. i mean in other cities, other places, they have shuttles. i know muni is like, really good on -- or used to be really good on the amount of buses that they would have and the amount of service, the time, it really just needs to go back to the full capacity. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello again, board members. i guess my line got cut off.

i don't know why my phone never likes me on these calls. i'm back. i know around where it dropped. essentially, what i'm talking about is the survey does not allow for any real feedback on the line-by-line level and it's not going to lead to very good outcomes in the service. there are some changes here that i would, you know, most likely support, such as the 2019 rapid, but when i can't give feedback on the line-by-line level, it makes the process difficult to trust. the other thing i would say is that, you know, there is already a lot of distrust in the public and i think it's very valid, because it's obvious that the mta, they had these plans, at least some of them have been around for a while. like the 14r. or the 49r, excuse me, has been around since muni forward, a while ago and it was just never implemented. so i think there needs to be more honesty with the public

that, you know, some of these plans did exist before and we're trying to sell them again now under the covid pandemic. and it's just not a very genuine process. you're not going to get good feedback like that. i this you should put the routes back. in a few years, if you want to talk about it, that would be a good time. when people can in come to in-person meetings. i think we need to restore the routes and the commercial corridors and stop with the route cuts. so thank you. >> thank you. moderator, any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> so we close public comment. mr. kennedy, perhaps you can talk about the outreach and the time frame and why -- and our

ability to extend it. i know that we are getting into budgeting cycle and there are different considerations related to that. but maybe you could talk about the time frame and our ability to extend it and additional outreach we plan to do. >> yeah, sure, thank you for the question. just to reiterate, i mean, there is plenty -- what we're talking about right now is, you know, winter 2022. we're not talking about -- there is no cuts, there is nothing being cut. we're talking about adding 10% service and the question is, how do we add that service? there is nothing that is not, you know, coming back or going to be returned at some point. we are as noted and director tumlin noted earlier today, we're working aggressively to find additional funding sources that will get us above pre-covid service levels. this is just a point in time, a step in the process of how we're

trying to recover from the covid period and get the city back up and running. there will be, as i noted in my presentation, we're already beginning at least preliminarily starting discussions on the next round of service changes. and that will become even more prevalent in the outreach in december and the winter and spring. this is a point in time based on the resources we have available. how do we add the 10% service back? like i said, we're agnostic. it makes a lot of sense if we go restore service as it was pre-pandemically, or we can also look at other options. we thought it was valuable to have that discussion. and talk through the values that this system is going to have. but by no means are we talking about cutting service or not having routes restored at some point. >> if i may, i want to emphasize

this point, because there is a tremendous amount of misinformation spread on this topic about what this process is. so we're right now hiring and training new operators, mechanics as quickly as we can. the only work that we're doing right now is figuring out how should we best use our newly trained operators and other transit professionals for our winter service restoration. that's what this process is and that's why we're doing it so quickly. we need to make sure we have a process that allows us to make the route decisions, build the schedules and deliver the service as quickly as possible, so that san franciscans can actually take advantage of that service. once we're done with this process, we then start a new process about what should a 100% muni service expansion or a 110% muni service expansion look like? we will have much greater luxury

of time for that set of questions. and i want just to maining sure that people separate out these processes. we're not making final decisions about what the transit system should look like three years from now. we're only looking at winter. and many, many questions are on the table and become a lot easier to answer if we have additional resources. simultaneously, and i just want to say this out loud in public, because you all have been engaged this work, simultaneously we're also working on a different planning process centered around our t2050 work that is looking at what are our funding options? it is urgent for us to get new funding to sustain our current service, let alone expand. and we are doing that technical work right now and will be engaging with the public once that technical work is done, in order to secure that new

funding. we will need probably complete agreement from all 11 members of the board of supervisors and the mayor and all of you as well as key community stakeholders in order to move forward and secure that funding. because most of the sources that we would be looking at require a two-third vote of san franciscans. >> that's great. i think there are two things. i think the familiar route alternative does sound kind of confusing. and i think that the way we're asking the questions are a little confusing. i think that if you talked about -- if you added back 10%, what would be the first thing you would choose, these five routes? if you added another 10%, i think if people could have an option like that. if you only have 10% more, here's how to allocate it. i think it would be a hybrid for most people. we're hearing that a lot of people would like to see all service restored. if we're saying we're going to

restore all service, then part of the question is how do we reach that point? they think allowing people to make and lay out that in their minds, it might be, because in the abstract asking people do they want more frequent high-capacity routes or service restored that is more infrequent. i think it's a hybrid of what people would like to see. so i don't see the option of three distinct options but more likely a hybrid of the actions. i apologize, it's hot in high house and i know it's noisy. i think if we can think about a way to give people input that is more significant than making these tweaks, than we might get better results and more satisfaction in the process. >> i don't disagree with you, chair borden, but we need to resolve the current question of what we do with our new winter

service hours right now. and my staff do not have the capacity to address the larger issues of what our system should look like once it's fully funded right now. they barely have capacity in order to ask the simple question of how should we allocate our winter service hours? so i will assure you that we will be asking those questions later, but we do not have the capacity to ask all of those questions at once. >> chair borden: right. >> those are large questions we would want to give the public more time to digest. >> chair borden: i guess what i'm saying, the better question maybe is, if we can increase service 10%, what does that look like? that's kind of what i mean. not to say what it is at the end, but right now, where are the biggest gaps that people see in terms of the service that most need filling in if we only have 10% more we can do. that's all i would say. but i'm going to turn it over to

directors to weigh in. >> director hinze: i'm going to get specific about some of the routes. particularly the 6 parnassus service. so assuming this, tell me how the two sort of other alternatives -- tell me how a person would be able to get to that essential medical facility is this -- facility? >> mr. kennedy, you're on mute. >> yeah, sorry.

trying to find the mute button. okay, so thank you, director, for the question. so by two other alternatives, the alternatives where the 6 does not return to service, is that what you're asking? >> director hinze: yes. >> so, there is right now basically the 52 and the 66 are filling in for the 6 on that part of the route. and so i think what the caller pointed out. he was talking about his trip where he had to transfer, he took the 52 and had one options. one was going to forest hill, taking that inbound and transferring and coming outbound. you know, that's a very great point. those are the very types of comments that we're trying to get through this process. and figuring out where we made -- where we missed some of the

trip patterns and where things are very important to make sure that we cover. so that commenter had a great comment and that's something we need to look at. and definitely go heavily into weighing what happens with the six and if there are other ways to cover that trip and that trip pattern. because the 52 does not go up there. he's right. the 66 takes over that portion, so you can get there by bus, but much, much harder like he said, when you have to transfer because of other issues. >> director hinze: right. and then also the one other one was we did receive a lot of comments in writing about the 43. so can you talk about the proposed route for the 43 particularly not serving directly to fort mason and a couple of the cultural

institutions there and the safeway? >> yeah, the marina safeway by fort mason. so, one option, of course, is to just extend the 43 for its old route up to the presidio transit center and down through the marina over to the marina safeway. one option we also wanted to explore, what if we had the 43 terminate at presidio and then have the 28 come off the freeway and go through the presidio before joining with lombard and heading down lombard to north point. you know, the trade-off there, the 28 would not go to the marina safeway. and fort mason. so that is the trade-off that we were interested in exploring. we're hearing feedback that not

really something that at least some members of the community wanted to see. so that once again is very helpful feedback for as we understand going forward for -- excuse me winter of 2022. >> director hinze: i guess my question about the j is we're to restore the j to the current route, does the subway have the capacity to take it, you know, to accommodate the j train in the subway? >> it does. we are -- as the caller pointed out, she was right. pre-pandemic we had 41 trains going through the subway in the peak hour. the subway could only handle we think somewhere in the 30 to 32, 33 range. and so that was the number we've

been targeting to try to make the subway run smoother and be in better operation. as we continue -- as you know, the l for example is under construction. we don't have the subway shuttle up and running as frequently as we want and as we had planned to. so as the subway itself ticks back up, we need to be monitoring that and measuring that and making sure that we don't reach that threshold again of making it difficult for trains to get through the subway. so, we're trying to balance all of those different needs, but future capacity of the subway as well as how much we can actually put in the subway. >> director hinze: and then somewhat not related to this, we had a couple of students call in and say that they didn't know about how it's affecting their commute to school. how are we getting the word out

to youth and are we working with sfusd? >> yeah. we have a special staff member that works directly with sfusd and all the route changes, getting bell schedules, making sure that we've updated our school-trippers so they match the new bell schedules, but also getting the word out as to changes for the system. we have the new -- the new y tab for the youth focused board that we present to often. we've made two presentations to them in the last several -- in the last month really, about this particular process. but do also provide them with all changes related to the service changes coming up. and then, of course, have our normal process of having information available online and sent out to listeners and things

like that. >> director hinze: okay. i think at this point i'll turn the questions over to the colleagues and i might weigh in later as we discuss. >> thank you, director hinze. moving on to director lai. >> director lai: -- actually, director yekutiel? >> i think the director was before me -- >> that's okay. go ahead. >> commissioner yekutiel: thanks. thank you for the presentation and to all the members of the public that weighed in. we're asking for a lot and we do appreciate you providing comment. i have a couple of high-level clarifying questions and one specific. one is like what are we trying to accomplish here? because it does seem like filtering down to the public, there is a lot of different

opinions on what we're trying to accomplish. i heard in the beginning of the presentation, you know, we're not saving a lot of money between these three plans. one increases service in certain places and decreases. so can you just briefly for those and me, what are we trying to accomplish here with these plans? >> it's a great question. i mean, what we're trying to accomplish is what do we do with a 10% service increase. roughly 10%. where does the public want to see that service go? you know, we've done six service changes or six increases in service since that day when we cut back to 17 lines. and with the last service increase as i pointed out in the presentation, you know, we feel we've made the base level coverage. we've got 98% of the population within the san francisco, within a couple of blocks of an active

transit stop and that's the base. we had to get to that point before we talked further about what to do with additional funding. now that we're at that point, we have a 10% service increase coming up -- or available to implement in early 2022 and how does the public -- and how do you all want us to spend those resources? that's what we're trying to get at. each one of those three buckets spend the same amount of resources. i think the transit rider caller had alluded to the fact that we were asking people to balance the budget by walking further. any of those three options use the same amount of funding. so not balancing the budget on the backs of people. we're asking what people want and getting great feedback.

>> commissioner yekutiel: that's lost in translation -- >> this is not balancing the budget on the 10%. that is not what is being -- that's not how people are feeling about it, at least in the public comment and the written comment. so that's probably a job for us on the public communication site to make sure it's communicated as clearly as possible. tell me about the matrix we're using here. it sounds like there is efficiency and access. how does the agency -- how have we made these calls in the past when faced with these decisions and priorities? >> i mean it's kind of interesting because it's really unique. right now we're talking about adding back service. we don't have the ridership -- typically, you look at ridership, how much you're spending. for instance, if you want to get into the weeds, it's like what the subsidy per rider, what is the cost per rider?

if we average riders on certain lines, we have 300 on this line and 4,000 on that line. what does that mean for frequency changes? and should we put additional services on the 4,000 rider line? but in this situation, we have pre-pandemic ridership numbers which can shed some light on demand, but as you all know and commenters have talked about, you know, there is a shift in how people are using the system. we don't know how long the shift is going to last or how aggressive the shift is going to be. at this point, we have certain lines operating. we know we're at capacity or approaching capacity on a number of lines that are operating and that's why the question is, do we want to put more service on some of those lines to really increase capacity and drive up ridership, or, you know, do we want to return the service on some lines that currently we don't have service to go on?

so, you know, that's some of the metrics we would normally use that we don't have a chance to use at this point. we continue to make observations and modify and change service even once we get things implemented. >> hi. i just want to share. i think what you're hearing in some of sean's comments, there isn't a right answer here. we're having the discussion because we value the input because we have choices about how we restore service and we want to do it in a way that is thoughtful, that anticipates the agency's overall goals around the climate crisis, economic recovery and equity. and, you know, we very much appreciate the comments of both

the board and public in informing that. we all wish that we had, you know, more time to train operators and train mechanics. it was our myopic focus right now in the agency. we're excited that we're going to have more resources to spend and this will help guide how we do that. >> thank you. it almost feels like this a very philosophical question with kind of what we do, which is our system is meant to both try to get as many people to work and school and to get people fast and efficiently as possible and to provide as much access as possible to a city with a lot of hills. my question -- and i'm not saying this is how i feel about the issue right now, but i want to ask this question.

you know, what can we offer people who -- and what do we currently offer people who don't have a bus line, live on a hill, or might for whatever reason no longer have a bus line? what other options does our public transportation system provide for them to be able to get around the city if the bus line isn't present? >> director, are you asking what is our safety net? so, we strive to have as many people as possible be able to access our core system. it is the most convenient. it allows for spontaneous travel. we have a very, very dense network of service. regardless of how we end up weighing on these trade-offs. we also have a paratransit

safety net, because there are for some people, even walking a half a block to a bus stop can be arduous, so we do provide that option for folks who need it. >> and director, it's important to emphasize that we have restored service on almost all of our routes in the hilliest neighborhoods. they just might not all go all the way downtown right now. it may require a transfer to part of our high frequency high-capacity network to get elsewhere in the city. we've been trying to spread our city out in order to meet very changed travel demand patterns where there is a lot of crowding in our neighborhood commercial districts and to our institutions. and excess capacity to the financial district. so we've been rearranging, trying to be conscious of surveying all of our hilliest neighborhoods. so the questions are really

right now about some of our east-west lines. we know on the 21 hayes, there is topography in the western edition, but we're not talking about the hilliest part of the city, like twin peaks or golden heights. there is service, it just may not go all the way downtown or be as frequent as it was pre-covid yet. >> how can we get the feedback that we want to get? it seems we all have the bus lines that we use and develop a personal relationship with them. i used on the 24th and castro. the 28 and 24, people get -- develop relationships with these lines. what i was thinking to prepare for this process to be a good director, i would ride the lines we were think being changing.

but, unfortunately, the seven lines in the appendix, they're not around. so we can't ride the buses and say how would you feel if we don't bring this back? how can we actually find way to hear from the folks who rode these lines consistently to see what it would mean for them to not have them come back? seven in the appendix. >> that is one of the questions on the survey, is which lines did you used to ride. we're particularly looking for people who used to ride the lines that are no longer in service. we also collect a lot of demographic information as part of the survey. we want to be able to parse by older adults or people with disabilities or people with low income. we care particularly about demographics who have the fewest mobility options. we also are able to parse by districts and other categories

so that we can do scientifically accurate cross tabulations of data to focus on all sort of characteristics. we're happy that we're getting a very high response rate. so that those cross tabulations should be valid. >> great. this is going to be brought back in december to be voted on, to be implemented a year in december. >> no, no, february. >> that's why we're moving so quickly. these are improvements we need to be developing schedules for less than five months from now. >> i would like to emphasize the meeting is december 6. the schedulers are looking for a lock down plan december 7.

so we're using the internal staff as much as we can to get this rolled out. >> cool. i only have one specific comment which is on the 21 hayes. i know that the president of the hayes valley neighborhood association representing a lot of the merchants on at least two of the blocks submitted a proposal to at the very least to reroute it so it doesn't necessarily intersect with the street closure. the street closure has been a saving grace for a lot of merchants on that corridor. and definitely not want the street closure, if it were to continue in some way, to not be able to continue because of the 21 hayes coming back in its original formation. i just want to bring that up because i know that the merchants on that corridor, it's pretty important to them. cool thank you so much. appreciate it. >> if i could just follow up to two things you just said.

i know you're getting surveys and not everyone is going to fill it out. are we overlaying with topography? and land use. there are lines where there are concentration of senior housing and maybe those people did not take the survey. are we going to look at those things, too, too make sure we're -- the people -- i mean, it's interesting. we talk about polling the people who are most interested will often be out there and paying attention, but the majority of people aren't paying attention and aren't weighing in. i want to make sure that we have other back channels for looking at our city that is not just based upon who is eager enough to try to bring their line back? >> yes. thank you, director. great question. yeah, so we look at topography when making route or even stop level proposals. the surveys are self-selecting.

we're going to do a cross tab to see what groups seem to be underrepresented and focus on those groups to get the number of surveys up in those specific subsets. but, you know, we've gotten 21, 22,000 surveys -- i'm sorry, excuse me, 2200 surveys to date. so, we're well on the ways to getting a significantly -- a significant number of surveys, so we're going to look, though, in the next few days just to see what groups might be underrepresented and see if we can get out specifically to those groups. surveys are definitely not the only thing we look at. >> land use, if we can add land use is what i'm mostly concerned about. >> sure. >> vice chair eaken: okay thank you so much, chair borden. i do want to thank the members of the public who took time to

call in today and share your views. i just want to thank you for riding the muni. every time you ride muni, you help us become the transit first city we want to be. we do hear you. i also want to say i'm a little uncomfortable with the assumption that i'm hearing in some of your voices that the sfmta staff do not 100% share your goals. from where i sit, nothing could be further from the truth. i think the sfmta staff deeply want to create the most excellent transit service we can and we're facing a difficult and challenging situation. so, i just want to reinforce staff are working so hard. these are world-class talent and we're so lucky to have these people working to solve these problems. and i would encourage you in your public comments to share that assumption and bring suggestions forward how to solve the challenge together. that's what the staff is asking,

your solutions and your constructive suggestions. there seems to be a lot of confusion and director tumlin spoke to it directly. i want to make sure everybody is clear. when we say winter, when will the service changes go into effect and how long is this sort of service regime going to be in place before future potential changes to the 100% and beyond until that might come online? so we all know. three months? five months, six months? what are we talking about here? >> julie? >> yeah, so we are aiming to have these changes implemented in february. i am cautiously optimistic that if we hit all of our other time lines we'll make that.

and these changes would, i think, be in place through the budget dialogue that you all are going to have, you know, beginning soon and really wrapping up in april. and that i think will give us final guidance on where we go next. we will, you know, continue to focus on the hiring process that will enable us to look at that question. >> okay. so if i'm hearing correctly, this is a phased, stage occurrence of recovery and reopening. it sound like this is a very dynamic period. we're talking maybe a couple of months and we're continuing to evolve and iterate the system as resources become available and getting new trained operators. >> this is very much what we're doing next based on all the hiring we're doing over the next six months.

>> great. thank you. this has two more points. one, i heard a lot in the public comment is bring back the 100%. bring it back to how it was. and there is a clear logic there, right? we liked it how it was, let's go back to how it was. i just wanted to say if the demand is fundamentally different, who is riding muni, if it's different who it was now, and i feel like we're living in a different world than we were in 2019. i personally am not convinced to go back to how it was is the right decision. we talk about director tumlin, this potentially 40% change in the downtown office commute. i know i went to my office the first time yesterday and i ran into two people there. it was empty and it's not clear that many people are going to be going back. it's clear we're going to be a hybrid situation for some time. i wanted to ask, do the frequent alternative or the hybrid alternative in your view, do

they respond to that very significant demand that you've or ticked late -- articulated? do you think they're responsive to the data you're seeing? >> julie, if you want to take the first half. >> yeah. i think that we have -- [dog barking] apologize for this. we have in realtime been responding to chose changing travel patterns. that's why some of our most important equity routes have more service than they did pre-covid. it's why, you know, we introduced the 15 third when we did. it's why none of the alternatives are looking at the express network that we had pre-covid. so, you know, we do think that any one of the kind of resource

equal alternatives that we're considering will still service needs. they certainly have different benefits and trade-offs in terms of maximizing ridership and maximizing coverage. >> okay. i think i missed the end of the response, but that's okay. my computer died and we can follow up offline on that one. can i just make a final comment and a final plug on the sort of performance polls indicators, outcomes. i think you mentioned director kennedy, last time, before the public comment that we raised, that we would not be planning to run these scenarios through

models and have modelled outcomes. i feel it's important to us as decision-makers when this comes before us on december 6, to really be able to understand the implication of these three different choices. just as one example, total ridership seems like -- if that was 20% different, one alternative to another, that would be very, very important for us to understand and to know. i mean, i understand certain things you may not be able to tell us without running models, but some of these things we could understand through current data analysis that we have. what is the income profile of those served by the three alternatives? i just don't want to sound like a broken record, but i harken back to the sophisticated analysis your staff did to inform our budget conversation in 2019 or 2020. they helped us to understand, for example, those who pay cash fares have the lowest income profile.

let's not increase the cash fare and yet those who use clipper card have a higher. that understanding just allows us to thoroughly vet these options and feel confident that the decision we're making is grounded in a deep understanding of the impacts and implications of these three different scenarios. i understand some things may be possible, but at least to the extent you're able, i would like to see a matrix in the december 6 presentation that compares the three snares yos -- scenarios on the three that. do we value equity? do we value safety and transparency? and even think being those values and even if it's like a red, yellow green indicator. even if it's high level. so we can all understand and make these decisions based on a

comprehensive understanding. because to your point, i think director yekutiel, we were hearing from people who want this line or that line today, but what about all the other people who don't have the time to call in and tell us that. we should understand that is sort of holistically who is served and who is left out by the different scenarios. >> that is exactly what we're supposed to do. i do want to emphasize that none of these options is perfect. they're all workable. they all use the same amount of resource. they all have the same amount of service in each individual neighborhood. they just rearranged that service in different ways. we'll be evaluating them across all of our system values and pointing out where one alternative scores better and where it works. ultimately, the decision on which alternative we should move forward with is a value-based

decision. and so we expect you all as our board members, you're the ones who get to make the tough call. we can simply provide the analytics. we're not going to be doing detailed models and trying to win the argument with false precision, because really what this comes down to is a question of values. >> thank you. thank you, chair borden. >> thank you, director eaken. i want to make sure. next is director lai. >> director lai: thank you, chair borden. so many great comments already made. and i do share a lot of the sentiments that are underlying the concern that i think director eaken has raised. we're just trying to understand how this all fits together and that is a priority for me. well, first of all, i want to

say hurray, we're expanding service. i think we didn't really celebrate that. it is super exciting. i think, director yekutiel is correct, some of the messaging may be a little off, but i think we're so bogged down in debating how to use the 10% that we're forgetting that we're actually getting something extra here. i just want to make a comment back on the public comment that we received. i think the board and the staff were very, very focused on finding new -- screens, which is why that topic keeps coming up over and over. we get budget updates so regularly, because we do have a major fiscal cliff that we're heading towards. and until we can find a new revenue screen which will not be until 2022, we don't currently have a reliable financial scenario where we can bring back

100% service. so, just to be clear, like that's where we're at right now. it's not that we don't want to, but we don't have the current means to that in a reliable way. i know that staff is working on a scenario like financially what it looks like for us to completely upgrade by providing even more than pre-pandemic service. so, i know we have that to look forward to in a future presentation. i think some of the concern that i'm hearing from the community and i certainly can empathize with it, because there is a little bit of a lack of certainty how long this 85% service will last, since we don't know when we're going to get our new revenue source, in people's minds, that next phase of service increase in winter may, in fact, be a little more permanent than the past

restorations we had. we know in the beginning of the year, we had a june and august extension, but this time around, at least i haven't heard clearly from staff, you know, when do we expect the next level of restoration to be. so maybe i'll pause there. director tumlin, or director kirchbaum wants to respond. >> one of the things we're doing is playing a bit of a risk game. i think all of you know that i have a very high tolerance for risk and like trying new ambitious things. i get conservative around risk when it puts our service and the livelihood of our workforce at risk. one of the things we're trying to do right now is knowing that we're entering several years of uncertainty, we're working to stabilize the agency and improve its resilience. so, for example, we're

strengthening our human resources division so that if we're awarded new funding, we can scale up very quickly. right now h.r. is a bottle neck for hiring. we know regardless of what we're facing going forward, we're going to need a strong h.r. division. once we have a path that the board of supervisors and mayor agree on for a new funding measure and once we have some indication that there is a reasonable likelihood that will pass, we ar eager to rapidly expand. we know there is a chicken and egg problem. we need to establish trust with the electorate. we need to be demonstrating that we're capable of providing excellent service, but not taking so many risks that if we fail at the ballot, we end up having to lay off 20% of my workforce as i was expecting to have to do last month if the

senate had not changed its balance of power. that's the situation i will do everything i can to avoid. that's why we're wanting to start our process for expanded service this winter as soon as we wrap up this planning service. position the agency for rapid expansion. build trust. and then as soon as we have some indication that more money is on the way, either from federal heaven or from the local electorate, that's when we start pushing the throttle down again. but until i have those in place, i can't recommend service expansion that would bankrupt the agency. >> okay. so i didn't hear in the answer, though, very clearly how long you expect this next level of restoration and 85% will last? i think you're saying that will remain that way until we get a

ballot? >> not necessarily. >> money rain was heaven. >> so money could possibly rain from federal heaven. also if the mayor and the board of supervisors come to agreement on a ballot measure, which they could do at any time and somebody does polling and muni needs fixing. we need a plan in place, we know, okay this is the time to drain the reserve in order to advance service, they'll trust in the electorate when and then start spending our new money. draining our resources now in the face of such uncertainty, that would be a terrible mistake. >> got it. yeah, i think then my last comment still stands, though. because of the uncertainty of the timing, we do have to guard this 85% as a prolonged service

scenario. i just want to say that, because, you know, it isn't like fort next couple of months. it could potentially be longer than that. so i just want to think this through that lens. >> it could be, but my goal is to have agreement on what our funding strategy is by the end of the year, along with, you know, some testing about whether it is likely or not. if we can get that, we will just keep our hiring efforts up at the current pace and keep expanding on a quarterly basis until we're back on our feet. >> cool. so great that we don't have to make that decision today, because hopefully, we'll get more financial information when we have to make the restoration changes. so i'm going to start by saying that i also feel that, you know, we should expand to 85% service as quickly as possible, because there is urgency in that.

we're already see ago lot of congestion on the street the longer that we delay restoring more service, so more people are turning away from the good habit of riding transit. i'm on the side of we shouldn't delay rolling out the -- roll out the sake of service just for extending outreach, however, i think some of the public could -- around our outreaches. it does resonate for me. i'm going to address those points first. so, first of all, i think the slides 17 to 20 that shows clustering -- or the spotting of coverage change, like the positive, negative cover change, that is pretty interesting for me to see. i would like to see how that overlays with passenger ridership patterns and what we

project ridership to be. i have no idea if we can do that. the other thing i would like to see the information overlaid with, is communities of concern, income, distribution, which is harping back to what director eaken was talking about and what director heminger had received. i don't know because i didn't see the information. i'm hoping that slide 17-20 that you provided us with, actually somehow aligns with our actual riders' needs. by riders, my priority on supporting riders, i don't have alternative. so not talking about people with options. i also think that, you know, the language around how we categorize these three alternatives, i agree with chair

borden, we should probably clarify it a little more. you know, as a lay person, when i read it, okay, like, that doesn't seem neutral to me. what i think you're trying to say, and i might be wrong, restored network. it's not restored service, because we're not going to be able to provide 100% service, so it's just restoring the network. and then the frequent alternative in my mind as a lay person again is more of a reduced network option, but we're increasing the five-minute network core frequency, right? that's the other slide of the bar chart that was also super informative for me. what is interesting for me is that the difference in terms of the five-minute network and between the frequent option and the familiar option is about 9%

change, right? maybe that's significant enough, i'm not sure. but i would like to put it in the context the fact that when we look at service between these options for -- in aggregate for service that is less than a 10-minute wait which is the bulk of the service. the change between the familiar and the freak is 1%. it does raise a question, whether we're getting very much for leaving coverage. it's just a question. i don't know which side i land on right now. the other thing i want to highlight, comparing with the hybrid option and maybe i didn't quite understand it, but when i look at what we gain in terms of that bar graph that you showed, what we gained between the hybrid versus the frequent and familiar, i don't know that we're gaining very much. so i'm not really sure -- i'm not really sure what the advantage there is.

i suppose when i look back at the slide 17 to 20, there is some improvements in service, but then there is also equal amount of job -- [indiscernible] in my mind, probably set aside hybrid because i don't see a significant net gain there. i do have concerns about how we're -- how we're capturing the survey information, again just dropping back to whether or not we're actually collecting data to inform our decisions that actually reflect our ridership and the population that we're trying to serve. so i really look forward to the team bringing back the information you've collected from the survey and i think the midpoint count would be informative. i would like to encourage us to

modify the survey a little bit to add a text box where we can capture any open feedback which we -- [indiscernible] -- >> can you guys hear director lai? >> we're not hearing you, director. i'm not sure why we're not hearing you. we're just not. >> still no. >> all right. we'll come back to you. director hemminger has comments. we'll go to him and come back to you.

there is a lot said, if you remember the movie, cool hand luke, there is a point where the bad guy talks to paul newman and says what we have here is a failure to communicate. i'm afraid that's part of our problem today and it was reflected in the testimony we received. you know, when we tell the public apropos this process, we're not talking about cutting service, that's literally true, but that's because we already cut the service and their bus isn't coming the way it used to come. so we sound disingenuous when we use language like that. if we don't restore funding to those lines that are cut, they stay cut. i think that one is on us. i think on them, this restoring 100% of pre-pandemic service, we can't afford to do that once the

federal money runs out. i think we've been stewards of what funding, but they're trying to make it last until we get to place where we're running and we're not in a cycle of layoffs and rehiring. and, jeff, you mentioned almost as a warning, i'm afraid, that what we really got stacked up in front of us are three different planning processes that are sort of talking about the same subject, which is how much transit service can we afford. and i think it's no wonder that the public is confused about that. i was confused about it until you laid it out. so i just think we have to be a lot more careful about how much process we try to shoe horn into these service restorations. i give you credit for trying, but i think what you've been doing up to this point is reacting pretty quickly to

circumstance and i know we're trying to work our way back to the normal as far as public engagement is concerned and we're clearly not there yet. i did want to say one thing about the merits, though. and that is that this notion of restoring 100% of the service is a slogan. it's not a strategy. and according to the staff, according to our analysis, there are only seven all day lines that are still suspended. so we're considering changes at the margin, at this 10% add. not the core of the service at all. the core of the service is not going to change between any of the alternatives as i understand it. and, look, i certainly sympathize with the facts that pre-pandemic service is familiar and comfortable. it's what we're used to, but i

think we ought to have enough self-confidence to see if there is a better way to put more service on the street that we can afford over the long run. so, i don't think we should shy away from this opportunity. it's challenging and it does involve trade-offs, but just falling back to the way we've always done it has never been an attractive option to me. so i encourage us to stick with this exercise, with all of its warts. and see if we can di vise a better plan to putting more than 10% service out there and hope that forms the basis for making headway with the public and our stakeholders about allowing us to not only get to 100%, but to keep going after that. thank you, madame chair. >> chair borden: thank you. i think director lai is back. let's try it again.

>> director lai: can you hear me now? [laughter] thank you. so sorry. i'm having so much internet issues today. i would encourage staff to add in the survey, the ability to fill in the blanks like additional feedback so that was clear. i think the crux of the question for me here right now is with the potential extension of the 85% service, what is the best use of that 10%. that's what the staff was trying to get us to answer. i was probably failing to understand that in the beginning. i think -- i struggle with being able to make a choice, a binary choice, that i think the survey is trying to set up, should we restore the full network versus improve on certain core line

frequency, because i really don't know what future travel patterns will be for the next extended period of time and i think that is true for most people. i'm just thinking out loud here and i'm not saying that we have to do this. i'm not necessarily advocating for it. but i want to understand, if we were to collect data on understanding what the new travel pattern is currently, what would that look like? do we have an ability to do that on the street, like can we, let's say, restore the network for a week and see whether or not we truly are losing permanent ridership in certain lines or certain hours? i mean, i feel like we're kind of -- i apologize if this isn't the case, but in the last couple of months of restoration work, you know, we are on one end if we could characterize it as

taking public feedback well and essentially, like, wherever we get a lot of public comment, we seem to restore those lines, which is not super scientific. i'm trying to get back to a systematic approach of planning our service lines. i think some of the -- like the -- sean had talked about how we're at the very beginning of the pandemic, we were adamantly adhering to the equity line. that is just amazing. but at this point we're, you know, expanding service beyond just the core equity line, right? we have a little bit of capacity to service, like job, schools, family trips, all that stuff. but i don't really have a comprehensive understanding of where the permanent losses are happening. i think what director heminger said is true, i think we can

infer we don't need as much as downtown, but the rest of the city i don't know. and to me, it's difficult to analyze on, like, the need of the lines when we don't even -- they're not running right now. so staff, can you enlighten me? maybe i'm not understanding all of the data you provided. it is in my mind complicated. >> let take a stab at this, because indeed it is very complicated. we rely on many sources of data. i agree with director heminger, we're not doing a good job on how we make our planning decisions and recommendations and how our several different plans processes interrelate, because we're doing more work as an agency than, you know, we practically done in the last 10 years and we're doing it all simultaneously. so from a travel pattern

perspective, there are many shifts that have occurred. the overwhelmingly biggest shift is the lack of office commute. so this is predominantly impacting the financial district, but also other parts of the city that have a lot of office. this is not a permanent change. it is a change that will be with us for several years. i am completely confident that all of those empty office buildings in downtown san francisco will be filled again. they'll just be filled at the same recovery rate as is typical for every boom-bust cycle in san francisco. so even employers that are shifting to a three-day week schedule, they're not going to keep all that same office space. they're going to shrink their footprint and new office space is going to be available for lease. and employers pushed out of san francisco will be able to return to downtown san francisco. so eventually, all of that

travel will come back, but it's going to take probably seven years, because that's the typical up cycle in san francisco. so we're very much looking at that data and we're seeing it in our own ridership patterns. i hope that you all go and check our two covid dash boards. particularly, the maps that show our standing loads on our buses by time of day and by line. it's a really powerful tool that we use every month. school commute is a big focus of ours right now. and that's not necessarily something that drives our all-day network planning in a big way. it does to a certain degree, including the route restorations we're planning.

what it really does is drive how much service we allocate at specific times of day. i also want to emphasize, we're not planning by complaints. indeed, we've gotten a ton of comments on specific lines. and i'll give a specific example of the 31 balboa. we didn't restore the 31 balboa because people complained about it. our own internal process demonstrated early on it was the second highest priority after the m, because it was the greatest gap between two parallel lines. and our own analysis closly coincided -- and really listened to their advice in the restoration that we did back in august.

again, to emphasize, we're doing our planning to make sure that all san franciscans are it 2-3 blocks from muni. we've accomplished that. we do analysis to adjust for topography, so lines are closer together where places are steep. we do analysis to support different population like the seniors and disabled folks who are concentrated in chinatown and the tenderloin. our technical analysis told us one thing, but community input pointed out to us that the 27 stop at foodco in the mission district was critically important to many community members, something that wouldn't have shown up in the technical information, but very much did in our community engage: so we

obviously have as we have from the beginning pay extra attention to what are defined at equity neighborhoods in the muni equity strategy, but look at targeted demographics in critical neighborhoods where we do extra community engagement. so we will continue to use all of that data and that will be part of whatever staff recommendations we provide to you. but, again, i want to emphasize that the ultimate decision is a value judgment about specific trade-offs that we struggle with. particularly, our desire to focus on very high ridership, to get people back on muni and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is with our desire to provide transit service that is very close to all people. but it's clear again from our own data, including our performance right now, is that our lines where we have invested in frequency, we have gotten an

extremely strong ridership response. and this is also something, of course, that we have heard from our community survey work, is what san franciscans really crave is fast, frequent and reliable service. so we're trying to figure out how much of that can we provide in order to drive ridership while at the same time making sure that we're not leaving folks behind. >> okay. thank you for that, jeff. maybe i'll have a couple of points to make and i'll end it here for now. i think personally, pre-pandemic i rode muni every single day. all the time. and i struggle with sloughing my kids to and from station even with pre-pandemic service. so the reality for families having a safe even harder connection, fewer stops is very difficult, especially as we're trying to get back to normalcy. but i understand what you're

saying. the whole system will suffer until we get enough money, so we just have to make some of those decisions. which is why i go back to that bar graph comparison on slide 16, that sean prepared or maybe your team prepared which is very informative. i can see clearly what are the trade-offs between the bars that you're laying out and again, i ask my colleagues to weigh in on. is it really worth it to go from like 80% less than 10-minute wait for service with an -- in exchange for a 1% increase if the frequent scenario versus going back to what people know? i'm not saying we have to go back 100%, but that is still to me not a fair tradeoff yet. because people build their lives

around what we had before. the transit system. people getting emotional about the lines and it's true. i picked where we live based on the transit line i thought we would have. so i can totally understand people's reaction to, you know, just having concern over the reality of potentially having 85% service change for an extended period of time, so i just want to acknowledge people's feelings about that. i would also like to point that there are quite a few comments we received around, you know, transfers and the concerns around transfers. i also agree transfers suck. like honestly, i skipped a lot of school because i couldn't catch my transfer and just like went home basically. so that's a reality that, my own lived experience. i know that transfers suck.

i would like for staff as we go into looking at the 10% service increase, that we're not -- like we're taking advantage of the 10% increase to balance out the number of transfers between, you know, communities of concern versus other communities, because we all know that transfers are not pleasant and it does discourage ridership, but this is one opportunity where we can, i think, have a little bit more of a just transportation system here by treating neighborhoods equally with similar levels of transfer. there is so much to unpack here. and i'm sorry if i'm not providing clear guidance. if you ask me right now, my feeling is that with the 10% increase, i would like for us to have some more clarity around

how we are certain that, you know, we are not just responding to the portion of the public that has responded to our online surveys. that we are capturing the needs of san francisco. >> so, director lai, you talked about how, you know, improving headway by just a couple of minutes, what difference does that really make? i want to emphasize that going from a 10-minute headway to an 8-minute headway is 20% expansion in capacity. and the challenge that we're facing right now is that our main lines are getting very crowded. and so the choice that we're

having to make is do we address crowding on our main lines like the 38? or do we accept crowding on the 38 in order to restore service on the two? so this is a fundamental challenge. our community service lines tend to be low ridership, plenty of surplus capacity. so our question is to what degree should we shift that in order to address the severe crowding problem that we're already today facing on our main lines? and that relates to the other two issues as well. one of them is about transfers. back in 2019, absolutely transfers were terrible at muni. our challenge is that particularly now during covid, that our travel patterns have changed dramatically, so we're no longer needing to be focused on getting everyone a one-seat ride to the financial district.

increasingly our traffic patterns are diagonal, to mission bay, to the hospital fully fung -- functional there. or so school. with folks who are loch low-income, people of color.

those are the neighborhoods where we have invested in faster, more reliable and more importantly more frequent service than muni has had in decades. the 14, the 8, the 9, the 38, the 30, are all neighborhoods that serve the cores of our equity neighborhoods. along with improvements that we've made in the t and the new 15. so, what we've done is invested in a core of very high frequent, high reliable less delayed services that then less frequent services can connect to and connect to in a way that is not driving you nuts, because of how slow and unreliable and how unfrequent muni service was pre-covid. >> okay. chair borden, is it okay if i make one comment? well, thank you for clarifying that. i don't think in the presentation did i understand

that some of the these like two-minute changes increased capacity by 20%. that seems like kind of an important fact that i don't think i gleaned from this. it would be very helpful for us in the next round of presentations if staff could make it clear what the advantages, the value-add is. i was mostly going off the comparison made between slide 16 to 20, which i did think they were very helpful, but clearly i'm missing some values there. i appreciate everything you said so far. i just want to also make one last comment about we don't know what it's going to be in the next 12 months. i think some of the assumptions that you might feel like you have a lot of conviction in, i don't know if i'm privy to the same amount of knowledge. for example, when you said,

downtown is not going to recover like for five years or seven years because of typical economic cycle. well, i don't know that, because this is not a typical, you know, economic downturn. this is, in fact, such a strange one. we have an economic downturn in some ways, but the markets are crazy. we haven't suffered a downturn in -- i don't have the same level of education as you do in this regard, but to me, anything is possible. maybe downtown is going to rebound. maybe 24 months. i hope that it is sooner rather than later. but what you have said in the past, still rings true. we have to be nimble. we have to be a new mta. we cannot do things the way we used to and for the public to give us understanding, we're

trying to iterate on the fly. trying to optimize on every last bit of resource we have until we have clear security in our financial standing to be able to bring everything back and hopefully better. thank you. >> chair borden, i want to let you know, i'll need to step away to go to the board of supervisors shortly. >> chair borden: i think that brings us to the end. unless we can close this item. we'll close item number 11. that brings us to the final item. which is to adjourn the meeting. so our next meeting is october 5 and we have a meeting on the 19. everyone, enjoy the rest of your day. thank you for your comments and paying attention. bye.

>> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season

holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays fridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second

interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that al together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how

it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the

giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning