At 43 million twoyear shortfall we needed to close. This is just a little context of kind of where that baseline comes from. On the revenue side, it assumes all of the indexing of the fees, fares and fines per board policy. There are some funds that come in that flow through the operating budget for capital use such as prop b, the population baseline as well as Development Fees and state capandtrade funds. We are assuming that the sb1 funds that i referred to earlier will be there. We have made other assumptions you can see here in terms of the revenue side, including the continuation of free fares. Were going to walk through fare proposals. One thing that i dont think i mentioned last time and were not currently showing, we have received requests from a couple of members of the board of education that we consider expanding our free muni for Youth Program to all youth, not just low or moderate income youth. What this budget assumes is continuation of the free budget fare programs as they are. What really drives the expenditure numbers are that we have already negotiated 3 increase in the first fiscal year of this 2year budget. And were using 3. 4 number in the second year based on numbers that we get from the controllers office. So those, as well as the pension numbers and the other indexing that lays on top of that for nonpersonal services is what drives our expenditure growth. So since we first developed that 43 million baseline, there have been some adjustments that we have been able to make. One is the general fund baseline. The 9month report i believe will come out in march and we may get further, hopefully further good news from the general fund. But well continue to update the general Fund Projections that we get from the city. But weve been able to do so since we created our first baseline. There are some changes, such as the change we made with the stockton garage that impacts the revenue and the expenditure side. And there is weve Just Incorporated other more current estimates on revenue and expenditures than we had when we first created the baseline. Thats brought the projected shortfall down to just shy of 31 million. We need to close the 31 until million gap, but there is other stuff we would like to or need to do. One is to integrate the Muni Service Equity strategy into our Service Programs and i think well have another slide on that. But this is per board policy that we implement whatever comes out of the the process. There are a number of Service Changes were poised to make, such as the opening of the central subway in december of 2019. The expansion of the rail fleet. We should have 24 in service by the summer. And 68 through the end of this twoyear budget cycle. We have a new bus division that well be opening up this summer to address the expansion and the bus fleet in the bus service were putting in place over the last two years. We will need to continue to invest in maintenance and modernizing the maintenance practices. And as weve talked about before, continuing to train our workforce as the demands on the workforce change as technology and other factors come into play. So depending on how you look at that, its on order of 60 million a year of things wed like to do on the transit side that are not included in the baseline. Just to spend a minute on this. Youll recall the muni equity strategy charged us to look at these eight neighborhoods, look at their Transit Service relative to the systemwide average and where we saw deficiencys to make changes. That process is currently under way. Well come to the board next month with the recommendations from the muni strategy as per the board policy and will need to incorporate those and make space for those into the budget. I did want to note for you, that our fund balance remains healthy. We have a policy that we keep 10 of the operating budget in reserve, which is getting toward 110 million. Our current projected balance is nearly double that. We did that dip down you see in the last year, was because i recommended and you authorized expenditure of fund balance dollars for onetime needs. But it still leaves us in a Pretty Healthy position and thats 13 million of good news we have on the general fund, just 13 million thadz goes into the fund balance because we dont have the authority to spend those funds. You can expect that we will again be proposing some strategic use of fund balance for onetime purposes but still leaving us with a healthy reserve and above the 10 reserve requirement. So i guess i just hinted on the first thing on the revenue side, weve not yet assumed any use of fund balance. So thats one tool we have in the kit. And any other new or increased revenue that weve not captured is still out there. As i said, when the general fund report comes out next month there could be more good news on their projections for the next two years in terms of amount of general fund we have available that there are other items at play that could positively or negatively impact us as well. On the expenditure side, aside from the transit issues that we discussed that are not in the baseline, there are a number of different items here we have not fully incorporated that we will either need to incorporate or need to make changes. I wont go through all these, but these are the things that as we get closer to Getting Better numbers on what our needs are going to, internally and from other agencies, these are going to impact the gap that we have to close. So, we will be looking at fund balance. As possibly part of the solution. For example, right now, we take some ongoing operating dollars and put them in the Capital Budget to use as reserves. So one thing we might do, rather than direct those dollars to the Capital Budget, use fund balance for the onetime needs in the Capital Budget and keep the operating funds in the operating budget. Likewise, the Population Based general fund baseline increase that prop b created is a source that has been fully going capital, but given that the biggest drivers of the gap in our budget is due to the increase service that we need to provide because of the growing population, it seems like potentially an apt use of the funds that are driven by population growth to direct those to ongoing muni Service Needs. On the expenditure side, ive already asked the divisions to identify ways they can trim their budgets without actually reducing staff. So we have a number of puzzles there and the transit division, the largest part of the budget, has come up with a number of different ways they might be able to better use the funds allocated or redirect some of the things, rather than buying parts that sit on a shelf, redirect those fund through better inventory and maintenance management. I do want to flag. I talked about the june ballot in the director report, but on the November Ballot will be a measure that will repeal senate bill 1 for us thats 27 million a year on the operating budget side. Somebody made comment about the condition of the streets, 23 million a year for street paving goes to public works from sb 1 as well as direct Capital Funds we get and other funds that we can compete for. So if were assuming that sb1 is not repealed and its passed, thats our assumption in the budget, that is a risk that would change what were programming these funds for if the funds go away. There are potential risks. The biggest one is the economy. Its a risk that we would have to manage once the budget is under way as we would an sb1 repeal or whatever we end up negotiating with our labor partners for that second year for which we have just place holder amounts right now. So we walked through a number of proposed fare policy changes. These would be deviations from the standard indexing. And so ive asked again our revenue manager Diana Hammonds to update you on the thinking and answer questions about the proposals that you all raised back in january. Good afternoon. Members of the board, as director mentioned, a lot of the information will be familiar to you from the budget workshop, but well go more in depth on some of the items. Just a reminder of the pricing of the fares. There should be goals that we look at in addition to just generating revenue. What were looking at is incentivizing transit ridership, prepayment, promoting equity. I just wanted to remind everyone that there is a title 6 Equity Analysis done in conjunction with fare increases so that will come at a later date. On the next slide, this is just a reminder of the great work that has been done over the last five years, really making the sfmta a leader across the country in terms of providing low income access to Transit Service by reducing many of our fares, providing free muni for seniors, people with disabilities, youth. And on the other side of that, we also have tried to equalize our fares for folks who are not lowincome, so weve done that through establishing discounts for all nonfree muni customers. Maybe didnt achieve the goals that we hoped for. And on the single fare increases we talked about where we are seeing movement, eliminating the cash transactions, have an update on that information. I think the packet may include that. Were seeing progress over the last six months. That is encouraging and were recommending consideration of holding that discount for clipper and muni mobile customers and increasing that differential. And then in terms of monthly passes, as i mentioned, the apass is where weve seen some transition of customers away from the product which provides a Great Service of options for customers within the city to use bart instead of muni. As noted, 28 drop in sales over the last five years which is pretty significant. So we are a couple of options, establishing a dollar amount as a cap, maybe a percentage at a cap. Another option could be a dollar amount with a percentage increase on that. This shows, if you have a percentage, its going to grow at a high are rate, we may be in the same place we are right now at some point. And then the next slide responds to questions. I believe director borden, you may have asked what the pass members are doing right now . We dont want to put policies in place that push people out of the prepayment options. This shows that most of our customers are kind of within a 2536 area. The folks who may not be using maybe as many trips as you think there is, some convenience that comes with purchasing the monthly pass and you dont have to think about it. That could be one reason. And then if you look at the numbers there, so currently what our pass is priced at is the equivalent of 30 trips. 15 round trips a month. Our indexing proposal for the monthly passes would bring that to 31 and then back down to 29. But the overall majority of the customers take more than 36 trips. Weve looked at the numbers for the last five years and dont see within the ranges where weve been, that there is really any transition of customers. Once you get kind of above the 3640, we might see that, but i think were in a safe place right now. On the visitor passports and cable cars, last time we brought to you a proposal that would have the significant reduction shown on the muni mobile and clipper side. What were showing is alternative here is potentially having that discount also for the in person sales, so again, its another option to look at. We really do want to encourage prepayment on this area. So be looking for direction from you folks on this. What this new alternative shows is using that cash fare differential model for the single trips as the basis for those, thats why you see a little bit of a difference there. We are looking at these fares in terms of how we think the customers are using the passes. Maybe not assuming that people in one day are taking cable car trims and three or four muni trips, but pricing them at a rate that makes them a benefit for people to use. One of the questions that did come up on the visitor passport was the idea of a family pass. We did find that at least on our muni mobile side that 98 of folks are purchasing three or less passes. And also, with the significant change were proposing, there is actually a discount already embedded in what were proposing because it would lower oneday passport from 92 to 48 for a family of four. So at this point, you know, the discounts are pretty significant even if we still do the single products. Again, we talked about introducing the lowincome single ride fare that is under discussion in the regional level. This would allow the existing lifeline customers to have the option of using single ride discounts instead of what we have now which is a monthly pass. It can be difficult for people to come up with the money at one time, so having single rides does benefit a larger percentage of customers. This is at the regional level. Were hopeful that this will be an option. And looking at maybe 1218 months that Something Like this would be implemented. And then something new that we want to try out, we have heard a lot from the cac and other stakeholders, about having a oneday pass that would not only does it make it more attractive of a product to folks who may not ride enough to use a monthly pass, but also if you already paid for that pass and maybe youre taking a third trip, youll go ahead and use muni instead of other options because its already paid. What we were looking at here is what is the right pricing for it . There was a question also that came up bebudget workshop, will we be losing money if we price it at a certain point . But what we found is 98 of the customers are using two or less trips on clipper with their purchasing single rides. So we feel still that between the 22andahalf multiplier that would be a good place for that. A couple of things we didnt talk about was bulk sales discount, this goes to the point of prepaid fares. Right now we have third party vendors, we have a commission, 75 cents for every item they sell. Its on consignment and there is a lot of account management, but we also have large tour groups and other conventions or things like that that call us and ask us, what kind of discount, if they want to buy a thousand tickets and we dont have a process for discounting that. And i think that would be a huge benefit because its easier to do one transaction, have them distribute them instead of having folks wait in line at our kiosk. This would go a long way in helping with the prepayment. The next one is the institutional pass program which you may be familiar as the class pass. That is the model where it exists right now. Basically its a revenue neutral model where you take the population, figure out how many people are riding muni and distribute the cost out across everyone. The requirement is that everyone has to pay. An example of this is the expansion to sf state which is probably, it is our Biggest Program to date. We have 30,000 students that participate, they pay this fee as part of their registration. Although there is an assumption that some folks wont use it, there is the hope that if they have it paid, theyll decide to use it. And so what were looking at Going Forward is that instead of having a very strict monthly rate that were able to work with different institutions, organizations, maybe even special events to use that model and to be able toll have that flexibility to enter into agreement with them. Again, this is just a summary of the options that weve talked about. And then the next. Page, we have questions. I answered some of them in the presentation, but just highlight some of the other ones someone had asked. We have about half of the monthly pass holders. Half of the trips are made by monthly pass holders. It does detail how many rides were assuming for the pricing, it makes a little more sense in terms of what the customers are doing. Then there was questions about working with hotels and other organizations to build that cost in. And there are relationship there was are built definitely have talked with communications and theyre looking at expanding that role. Its not kind of the target group weve worked a lot with, so hopeful that those relationships will continue to grow. Again, i answered the question about that already. Lowincome single ride fares, we have a great system in place to process lowincome eligibility, partner with the Human Services agency. So thats not a problem. In terms of fiscal sponsor, a question that came up, i think we probably all could understand that its not something that could be depended on, it would take a very significant effort to try to keep culminating that and its not guaranteed so that could lead to a sizeable gap in the budget if it didnt come through. So not something that our agency is focused on. I think the rest of the questions were answered already in the presentation. Thank you. Director, would you like to go on with the rest of the presentation, or like me to pause for board input on the fares . Why dont we finish up with at least the cable cars, just responding to the last part of the fare conversation and then it would good if the board had questions. Excellent, lets do that then. During the budget workshop we heard loud and clear from all of you youre very interested in our agency moving toward a place where we eliminate the cash from the cable car. Internal stakeholders, transit communication, revenue, we have got together and feel like this is something we can do. Laying out a timeline for this. Hopeful for maybe an early fall 2019 rollout. It will take a significant commitment. Primarily on the communications side, so working to develop budget, resource. What that would look like. Really enhancing our relationships with the Tourism Industry and hotels. These are the important things to make sure folks know what the rules are before they get here. So we felt pretty confident about that. Were going to continue to meet. And that will be our goal. 18, 24 months to get something in place. Chairman brinkman thank you, i think that is wonderful. I think we did hear that clearly from the board that moving toward cashless cable cars would be something we would definitely all support. I want to just pause here so we can go through these. If we flip back to page 37 where we have the fare change options all laid out. I think it might be a Good Opportunity for Board Members to just share what theyre feeling about some of the options. Who would like to start us off . Director ramos if i could just no problem. Ill go ahead and get started on these. I think miss hammonds said all of the options look good. Im in favor of all of these. Option 1, again, we talked about this at our break, the cash fare differential, totally in support of that one. Option 2a and b, to limit the premium. I am supportive of that. Its interesting, i do wonder you showed that the number of people buying the mpass which allows people to use bart in addition to muni, if i have that correct . Or is the other way around . A pass uses part, mpass doesnt. The number of people buying the pass is going down. I know of so many people who commute in that bart corridor to take bart instead of muni and im wondering in our improvements on the 14 line are helping those people feel less impacted by that and feeling like theyre not willing to spend the money on bart. I know thats your commute corridor director borden, to not spent the money on bart and move to the 14r line. This might be a question that we could answer later, what is the increase were seeing on the 14r since putting in the red transit lanes . I dont know, but were definitely seeing increase in ridership. But the decline and the use of the apass has been happening over the course of five years. On the some 14, so we think it has something to do with the price. It would be interesting if we could correct that or make it less onerous to buy the apass. Are they going to stay on the 14r . The fare differential for visitor passports, i like that one, i am in support of that. I think that kind of does tie in with the cable car as well, if we can get people buying their fare media in advance. I think thats a good one. Lowincome single ride, option 4, im very much in support of that one. I think that is something again that we heard from the board at the retreat that most Board Members did seem to be in favor of that. Option 5 ab, new day pass without cable car. That would be great. I know when i bought passports for visiting relatives, i was disappointed when visiting relatives did not ride the cable car because i felt like i was paying for the cable car and they didnt get out there and ride it. In a situation like that, a day pass could be good or the change of the passport rate. 10 discount for bulk purchases, tickets and passports, again, great, anything we can do to encourage people to buy all of the fare media advance and get it sorted out, understand how the payment works, thats great one. As well as option 7, expand the use of the institutional pass models to other groups and organizations. Anything we can do to get people buying them in advance. Just trotting right on board without delaying the buses while theyre figuring out how to pay is a fabulous thing. Director ramos thank you, madame chair. I agree with everything that you recommended. A couple of things that i would point out, still have questions about or concerns. The first one is around option 1, increasing the cash fare differential to 50 cents for cash fares and as excited as i am of that prospect, i think its important for us to also compliment that with complement that with improving the way that the customers have access to clipper cards or the awareness how to reload a clipper card. In the work that i do, im learning that even when people get clipper cards for free, essentially, there is very little reloading of the cards, simply because its not practical for a lot of us to reload them. So i was really excited about this prospect just a few weeks ago, but looking at data recently that is showing well, actually, were not seeing a whole lot of people reloading them as much as they could be. I think there is a disconnect there we need to address before we go further. Although i feel like it could be so valuable if we can do it, saving us time and money if we can get people paying with clipper cards. I do like also option 3 a lot for the visitors, however, because i think that most folks, if youre visiting youre probably can afford those types of fare differentials for sure. I think also option 4, ive heard more and more call for this. I am wondering how viable that is and how much it pertains how much it would depend on this new dosage of funding from arm 3 for clipper, what they call c2, or clipper 2. 0 at all if any. This would be a prec2 change. Excellent. So we can do this with our existing clipper . Good news. Thank you. And then i think for me also im really excited at the prospect of option 7. You all might recall when every time the commuter shuttles come up and we have people that are organized here, calling for more employee based programs to do more to get employers to provide passes to their workers or clients, whatever capacity. I love the San Francisco state model and if we can replicate that with more institutions and employers, we would be in a really good way. I deeply appreciate staff for putting all together these options and thank you for responding to all of our questions. I think we have a lot to think about. Ill hold my comments for now on that. Director rubke . Director rubke i agree with what is said. I would highlight our need as an agency to educate the public why prepayment institutional passes, cashless systems are so important for us and then, as far as safety for everyone involved. Efficiency for transit. And all that. I dont know if we can get the press to focus on that. I know there was press about the cable car, maybe not so positive. If we could harness that and make it educational to people understand why were moving forward with these policies, that would be important. But i dont have any helpful suggestions beyond that right now. Chairman brinkman director borden . Director borden i agree with the differential issue and if people are not reloading their cards, they lose them, misplace them and you dont want to have a lot of money on a card. I found a clipper card i lost a year ago, under some things i hadnt seen. I was disappointed. You know, that might be part of the reason. I know there is a registration process, but for some people that might be onerous. So unless preferring option 1, i think option 2, going back to somebody who takes every day muni and bart, i think that a lot of people live where they could walk to bart and if the pass apass were a differential that wasnt so advantageous, they would use both systems, therefore they would buy our pass as well. But i think sometimes people will just walk to avoid paying for the muni bus. They perceive upgrade of charge on the fare. Anything we can do to create parity. A lot of people i think are in that same situation. Making the differential less so People Choose the apass is a good idea. Im fine with the fare differential. We can work with the travel sites and stuff to help publicize that. And we have many of them located here in San Francisco. So i think if we can help push that, that would help us, because its like the gift card, people buy things they dont use. Lets do that. But you still get the money, so lets do that. Institutional pass is something i heard a lot about out talking to students. One of the concerns, we can do more of that across the bay area. That would be phenomenal and im supportive of that 100 . Like the day pass idea as well. I think that also helps people who have the choice between commuting between muni and bart, maybe they do it less frequently, so an apass wouldnt make a sense, but if theyre taking bart into the city, and then take multiple trips on muni before they head back. And then the discount for a bulk pass, thats a great idea. Chairman brinkman director hsu . Director hsu im supportive of all of these. Thank you for laying them out. I had one question on option 5. It looks like the data youre showing suggests this would be a net add in revenue and not a net loss, right . So that almost seems like a nobrainer in that case . I dont know that wed want to with a lot of these things, you may lose some people and gain others. So i think were looking at this really as a revenue neutral model, finding what the right price is. Director hsu what would be the calculus in deciding whether its 2, or 2. 5 . I did see some cities go two and some do a little more. I think part of it is how much you feel on the end will you increase ridership on one and maybe lose on the other. Part of it, when its something new like that, its best guesswork. But doing this on muni mobile will allow us to figure out what the best rate is. And again, part of it is what we cant really quantify is getting folks to use muni during the nonpeak hours otherwise they may be taking trips using yaubls or Something Else because automobiles, because they have that product in their hand already. Director hsu it seems that they buy it for convenience and they may not make the extra trip, but if you have the convenience, you can take the second trip and thats a winwin for everybody. Director torres have you provided outreach to high schools and colleges within our areas to educate them about what the options mean for them . Im sorry, could you clarify . Are agents out to high schools and colleges and what might work better for them as students . We havent done outreach yet on these particular proposals, but over time there has been a lot of outreach, particularly when free muni came in. There was a lot of outreach in the High School Level and that was when we extended up to 18 and that was based on feedback we got from high school students. Over the years, there has been outreach to College Students and that is how maybe i need outreach because all the options are very confusing to me. I dont know what are going to be best. Number 2, which is going to be best to keep up our revenue stream. One of the things that appealed to me was the family pass for visitors. We have so many people coming to the city, thank you god, and always looking for ways to reduce cost and family pass may be incentive to do that. When youre talking about removing the cable car provision from a particular pass, i think the chair was noting i think that the way you have it laid out right now, the passport keeps the cable car, but then we also do have the day pass without cable car. So a visitor could kind of decide do they want to do a passport, which lets them take advantage of the cable car as well. Good. Thank you. Yes, director ramos. Director ramos across the bay, they implemented a day pass and it would interesting to see how successful its been. I know there were questions how good it was how well it would respond to their riders needs, so i would encourage to look at best practices from them. Secondly, i wanted to clarify the option 1. I appreciate the differential and particularly with respecting the 25 cents limited for people with reduced fare. Limiting that. But either way, i think there should be a component with this, like a builtin component. Like if we do this, in whatever direction or not, we should be providing more education about how to use clipper and how to reload it and what have you. I wish that we could just depend on clipper and mtc to do all this, its clear they cant or wont. I dont know what the holdup is, but it feels like there is more to be done. If we go that route and protect the 25 cent to the reduced fare holder, users, i think that it would be absolutely require something to that effect. Some of that outreach around how to reload the clipper card and where you can get them. Chairman brinkman that is a good point. I want to call out if we do institute a new allday pass, that it is initially only available on muni mobile. So that kind of yeah, because it makes sense to have it available. That will help drive people to muni mobile, but i hear you about the education around clipper cards and i think that continues to be such a challenge. I know of people that i worked with who use clipper cards who were confused about the cash wallet side of it, versus the monthly cash side of it and could they have most. Its a little more confusing than we appreciate because we tend to deal with it regularly. Thats not the case for everyone. Thats going be a challenge, how do we continue to transition people to clipper . We appreciate all your hard work. If there is no more comments, im going to let the director continue on with the rest of the presentation. Ill remind you, when we put this cash differential in place two years ago, your direction to us was much the same. We worked with mtc to do a push on education. Sounds like it maybe needs to be done again. Maybe wasnt adequate in the first place. Well circle back and let them know the board may contemplate this but we need the assurance of education to folks of where to get them and maybe more importantly, how to easily reload them. So point well taken on that. We did want to just close out on the Capital Budget. There is not as much to talk about that. But to remind you that the Capital Budget is really where we can drive the physical changes on the streets to meet some of our top policy goal like vision zero and transit first and keeping the assets in the state of good repair. The cip is the 5year constrained program from which the first two years of which become the twoyear Capital Budget. This is what it looks like. The current one is just under 3. 5 billion. Our current projections, revenues bring us down quite a bit below that. A big chunk of the change is the central subway being nearly complete as we start this next and last cycle. These are the particular lines. These are the specific categories within the Capital Investment program. You can see there are a few areas where were showing increases, but this is really just based on what revenues that we anticipate will be coming with the sn central subway dropping off, with the state bond dropping off. Those are some of the changes that you see reflected here. So well bringing you more detail on the Capital Budget. Were getting close to having that finalized in terms of proposal for you. And then this is what it looks like Going Forward from here. We go out to do more outreach, to solicit public feedback. The main probably one of the main areas of feedback is on the fare changes. Largely a status quo budget at least at the moment. We do have to figure out how to accommodate those muni Service Needs and equity strategy recommendations, but i think the fare issues will invite peoples attention. So well be back to you. Looks like at the march 6th meeting. Well come back again at march 20th. You can see we want to give you and the public lots of opportunity to see where were headed. And well start sharing more so in march the ideas how were going get to a balance. And we should around that time also be seeing what the equity strategy recommendations are. Started giving high level briefings to the board of supervisors. Just to keep them in the loop. And try to get everybody onboard for the may 1 submission to city hall. So that concludes presentation. Be happy to take any feedback, questions, comments. Chairman brinkman thank you and thank you for the highlighting of the budget time line. That will be helpful and good to hear from the public and the board of supervisors. I want to loop back to a couple of things discussing recommending Strategic Fund balance use. I know we have talked about that before and we have done it. And i am in favor of that. I think that when we have chair heinicke back, that will be helpful. Strategic use of that is very important. I was wondering, i dont remember when that ballot measure went through, how it was im sorry im confusing my fund balance. Fund balance i am in use of the strategic use. The population growth fund, i dont remember when that ballot measure went through. What it was state thad the funds would be for . Was it stated they would just go into sfmta . It would be lumped in with the general fund . Its calculated separate, so now we get our allocation from the general fund and then the supplement that comes from prop b. The prop b legislation required that 75 of the funds go for transit. And 25 go for streets. It does give us flexibility between capital and operating how those are used. Last time we used it fully for capital. But again, because of the population growth is driving some of our operational needs, i think its reasonable to consider using part of it for operational needs. You see that the capital revenues are lower than theyve been. Not even accounting for central subway. We have a lot of Capital Needs were trying to meet too. There are no easy answers, there will all be tradeoffs. Chairman brinkman were lucky we have the fund balance we can dip into. To the parking garage revenue, i see that revenues are down in the parking garages. I know, i was given a tour of the polk and bush garage by mr. Graph showing the new technology that is in place for people to enter, pay, exit. Do we anticipate that with the new technology in place be and the fact that its going to be easier for people to use the garages, that we might see that revenue bounce back . And i see mr. Maguire coming up. Good afternoon, sustainable director. We do believe that the control system and Security System in the garages will have a positive impact on the customers. We think it will help them feel safer and more secure in the garages, definitely much more confident in their payment and more confident well get their payments. At this point, i think its probably a little premature, because weve only rolled it out to 7 garages to say, yes, were sure well get more or less revenue, but i know it will have a positive impact on the customers and hopefully that will drive the traffic. Chairman brinkman its such a tough story to tell people when parking is a thing that everybody sees as difficult and stressful. Its a hard story to sell to say, not in the parking garages, if you come into the parking garages, its here, accessible, easy to pay for, enter and exit. I can see thats going to be a tough narrative to change in the mind of drivers in the city. Right and obviously we certainly think that tnc has something to do with it. Its had a hit on the parking garages. Absolutely. Those were my only comments and questions. Any more questions, feedback . Again, we will have this to us, the budget time line, this will come back to us again. Director torres can you share if you can, what the response was from the board of supervisors that you visited with . Ive only gotten to two or three of them so far. The folks that ive talked to have generally liked it. Again, what theyre focussing on is the fare recommendations because those are the tangible recommendations and so far, its a positive response to those. Chairman brinkman thank you very much. If i have no other questions or comments, this was a discussion item only, so well go to Public Comment. Chair, we dont have anybody who has turned in a speaker card and i dont see anybody. Chairman brinkman if no one has any Public Comment, i will close Public Comment and well move on. Item 12, presentation and discussion regarding private transit vehicle route duplication. Good afternoon, im here with my planner extraordinary and this is a great Cross Division effort to establish the private transit per met program. We were before you in october and the board at that time adopted the ptv permit program. As part of the packet at that time in october, there was a route duplication draft memo which is how does staff determine whether a private transit vehicle route duplicates a muni route . And at that time, you asked us to come back. Its more feedback from the community. And vetted a little bit further and then come back before you with the informational item. So were back again, my colleague alex will give the bulk of the presentation. And im going to leave it at that. I think the nomenclature, its important to establish ptv, private transit vehicle, is a service that is privately operated, open to the public, typically for a single fare and generally along a fixed route. So with that being said, ill let alex again transportation planner from the sustainable streets division, lead us through the presentation. Thank you. My name is alex, im planner with sustainable streets division. Back in october we came to you with a package of regulations for private transit vehicles. It included a number of application requirements and permit terms and conditions. One of the few requirements is that any new private transit vehicle routes moving forward need to complement rather than complete with existing services. That can be difficult to define. So our legislation lays out process for the agency to release criteria that will use to determine whether a ptv route duplicates muni. So we when we came to you in october we had a proposed version of the memo laying out the criteria that was based on what percentage of route travels along the same street as a muni route. What we heard when we went and talked to stakeholders and members of the community, what people are concerned about is where the services are stopping. So making sure theyre stopping in safe and legal locations and not stopping in the muni zone. We also heard that maybe it doesnt make sense to look at what streets a route is taking, especially if its a express route, what defines what route that is serving, where its stopping. Weve put together these criteria to assess whether ptv routes stops are similar to the muni route. First thing we look at, even if a portion of the ptv route is similar to muni, is a significant portion branching off to serve a different neighborhood . The metric we used for that is fewer of 75 of the stops within. 2 miles of stops along any single muni route. Is it providing different rides than we do . The second metric that we look at, are they providing express service where muni doesnt pride that. We look at the stops, are they fewer than 50 of the stops along a comparable muni route. This diagram will help illustrate how that works. There are few exemptions to these criteria. If a ptv route is operating late at night, where we dont provide that kind of service, that will be permitted. Service to communities of concern in the southern third of the city would be exemption from the criteria. So those are communities of concern are defined by the metropolitan Transportation Commission and those south of the line approximately formed by chavez would be included in the exemption and thats to encourage geo graphic equity. Finally, we have exemption for connecting. That doesnt include the stops along market street. And then finally, i mentioned before that this only applies to new ptv routes, so any existing routes as of last summer are not included in these cry teemplt criteria. Weve talked to a number of stakeholders in the last few months. Met with chariot, the Company Providing this type of service on the streets to discuss how this impacts their routes. Weve talked to advocacy groups, Transit Rider Union and then back in december, 40 people came out, i think it was a helpful discussion in small groups. With different perspectives across the city to talk about the criteria and ptv services in general. All that, went into the changes that were making to the criteria here. I wanted to go over some questions that weve heard about the use criteria. First of all, this is technical topic. So we wanted to go over how this works out on the ground. We assessed how these criteria would be applied to chariots existing routes and found that 8 out of 12 morning routes and 8 out of the 9 are considered complementary. Thats the same as the result under the previous version of the criteria. So this, while this new version frames different, it has similar impact. I mentioned the existing chariot route were exempt from the criteria. We heard if they change the existing routes, are they still exempt . What weve been how weve been assessing that, if they make minor changes from where their route were, its still exempt. If theyre farther than. 2 miles, the exemption no longer applies. Probably the key concern we hear everywhere and have as an agency is making sure these services are stopping only in safe and legal locations outside of the travel lane and outside of the way of muni. That is still the focus of the program and its in this memo itself. And then finally the criteria are flexible. These will be issued in memo from the director of transportation and if a year from now we find that theyre allowing ptv routes that are similar to the services or theyre too restrictive and prohibiting routes that are serving a different market, we can go back and amend those as long as we provide 30 days notice to the public. So that and happy to take questions. Chairman brinkman thank you. Good presentation. That does answer the question. Have we had these ptv Companies Come to us with proposed routes that we then either reject or work on the route to make sure that its not duplicating and it is actually complementing the muni service . So chariot has applied for a permit and were currently evaluating that application. That application doesnt include any new routes since last summer, but we have discussed some potential routes that would be allowed. We dont just then sort of give them a no full stop, we try to work them as we have with the existing stops, moving them around to meet neighborhood needs. Exactly. Chairman brinkman questions . Director hsu on the 50 , the express route option, you can front load those, so you could do four stops and skip all the rest. It allows that flexibility for the ptv . Yes, and we see thats the pattern that a lot of their routes do serve. They might stop several times in the neighborhoods, but then run express to soma. Director hsu with all of these, they could be right on top of the other stops i know they cant use the actual stop, but they could be literally on the same block as long as theyre meeting the roast of the criteria . Yes, as long as theyre within. 2. Just responding to some of the emails weve gotten in the past about the input that was asked from some of the stakeholders and folks that are concerned with violations and interference with regular muni service. Im wondering if any of that was taken into consideration, if you folks have negotiated the memo . Yeah, thats really been the key thing weve been working on in evaluating the permit application and talking to chariot about this, going through every single one of their stops and seeing is this in a safe and legal location and moving any that arent. Director ramos with respect to enforcement around double parking or effectively interfering with Transit Service, is there at accountability when a driver does this . So, this program is going to be run out of the taxi and Accessible Service division and they have a dedicated team of enforcement officers following up on complaints and going out on the street. In addition, just having the permit Program Gives us a lot more ability to work directly with the people at any private transit vehicle operator who are setting the stops and make sure they follow up on complaints we get. Director ra w