tv SFMTA Board of Directors SFGTV July 5, 2020 12:15am-4:16am PDT
>> madam moderator, what's happening with the public comment? >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi. caller, please give us your name or start talking. this is public comment on the meeting from june 26th, 2020. >> question: can you hear me now? >> yes. >> question: it's david philpell. on item 16 last time, there was no opportunity for public
comment on that item and perhaps the minutes should so reflect, thank you. >> great. should we include that amendment on the minutes? directors, are there any additional callers at this time? >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> so for members of the public on the line, this is an opportunity to comment on approval of the minutes from the june 16th regular meeting. if you would like to comment on the minutes, please state your name and we will start your two minutes. hello? >> operator: sorry, hit the wrong button.
>> operator: you have zero questions remaining. with that, we'll close public comment and directors, do i have a motion for the approval of the minutes from the 16th. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favour. do we have to do role call? >> yes, madam chair. (role call). >> the minutes are approved in a 4-0 vote. item 5. >> as some of may know, we lost a member, art curtis, who passed away with a long battle with brain cancer. in his early union, he fulfilled
his dream with sfmta driving trolley buses and conductor on the cable cars. he worked his way up the ranks through a transit service inspector and chief transit control inspector and retired in 1999 after 37 years of service. the management position he loved the most, chief transit director of muni, staff and assistant chief and transit inspectors for over 20 years. he was also muni special event's coordinator to major and minor events in the city. a third-generation person in san francisco, a long-time member of the bay area railroad association and founding member of the western railway museum. he was also a me member of the
board and market street railway. curtis will be dearly missed. it's fitting that we will close our meeting today in his honor, but today, we also honored the top 20 of 2020, so we honor thed service members with the longest service and one of the operators today, dwayne allen, retire as of today after 41 years of service. so, it is very fitting that we close our meeting in honor of art curtis with the many people we were talking about honoring today. secretary, i have to read the covid stuff. [ laughter ] >> still getting used to this covid announcement. so due to covid-19, health emergency, this meeting is held virtually and all members of staff and all members and staff
participating today are via teleconference. this will ensure the safety of the sfmta directors and public. in our published for this meeting, we asked the public to participate remotely. i do want to thank all people who have sent comments in advance. they were received and we do actually read and listen to them. we continue to urge the public to write the board at email@example.com or call (415)646-4470 in advance. while this technology allows us to hold these meetings via teleconference, it may not be as seamless as we would like it to be. there may be gaps and silence as staff is transitioning in the technology between different speakers. please know we're doing the best we can and ask four your understanding and patience if we lose the phone connection, we'll
pause until the connection is reestablished and that did happen in the last meeting and if you do wait, we will come back. lastly, i would thank all people and there are many people involved to make this meeting run smoothly and so i want to thank the dedicated staff at sfmta to make it possible. with that, i'll turn it over to the board secretary to continue making announcements. [ laughter ] >> thank you, madam chair. so for members of the public, neating is being televised by sfgtv and for those watching the livestream, please be aware that there is a time lag between the actual meeting and what members are saying on sfgtv. if you are watching via sfgtv and wish to comment on an item, please call the telephone line when the call -- when i am calling the item. if you wish to make public comment on items on the agenda, the phone number to use is
(888)808-6929. the access code is 996-1164. this information is published on our agenda and also on our web page. please make sure that you are in a quiet location, that you turn off any tvs or radios, you turn down the sound on sfgtv and mute that sound and this will reduce any reverbation so the board can hear you. at the appropriate time, the chair will ask for the phone lines to be opened. at that time, if you wish to comment, you will be prompted to press 1-0. this will add you to the speaker line. the automatic prompt will say that callers are entering the question and answer time, but this is the public comment period. you will be queued up in the order in which you pressed 1-0 and there will be an automated voice that will tell you when it is your turn to speak.
at that time, your microphone will be un-muted and you will hear us ask you to state your name or to begin talking and i will start your two minutes when you start talking. i will give you a 30-second warning when you have 30 seconds remaining. when your time is up, you will be thanked and the chair will ask for the next caller. at that point, the moderator will put the speaker back on mute. i will repeat the instructions how to make public comment again as i am aware some members may join late and may not have heard this information. madam chair, item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board member. director brickman, i think you may have new or unfinished business. >> thank you. i just wanted to bring up a couple of things i have heard the public talking about. the first one is what we are able to do and what we are going to continue to do in district 6
in terms of of either adding low streets or making more space for people to safely gather without being so close to one another. specifically wonder why the smta doesn't weigh in publically. i saw from the last update, we are watching that one and my understanding is usually with these type of legislative things, the city sort of weighs in as a whole, so maybe you could just address how that works so people understand why we, the sfmta board is not
putting forward an opinion. thank you. >> thank you, director eakin. >> thank you so much. i just wanted to more specifically ask, i recall the slow street to rule out we got a fair number of comments why we didn't see more amenities in the tenderloin executiv and i recale was a larger tenderloin assessment ongoing and we wanted to be a part of that process. so i was just wondering if we could hear an update from staff on that larger process and when we might be able to address the desire tor more safe streets and open streets in the tenderloin. >> so director hemminger, do you have any unfinished business items? >> i had a couple of questions for jeff on his report. so i'll wait until that. >> with that, madam chair, that
section will get to item 7, the director's report. director tumlin. >> thank you. can you all hear me? >> yes. >> good afternoon. as i'm sure you all know, our entire staff has been working hard for the last months and a lot of our work is now focused on the transportation recovery plan. in order to move forward really quickly on our transportation recovery plan, building trust with the public is important. expand so i asked the data teamo push out in real-time the key dataanalytics for what munii linelines to bring back given te limited resources and managing our budget, which is the focus
of most of today's meeting. if you could google covid-19data analytic's dashboard, the dashboard will come up and they're updated at least every week. as soon as i get the data, we're pushing the data to the public and i think this is really going to be a useful tool moving forward and we'll add additional dashboards as new data becomes available. and we've also been working really hard on slow streets. as most of o you know, we've installed 20 slow streets on 14 corridors covering all of the city at this point. we're on track to install two more corridors in the coming week on 20 proceeding avenue and ortega adding another 5.5 miles to the network.
we've been learning a lot as we go along and sent out some criteria about what seems to make for a successful slow street and what doesn't. the characteristics of a successful slow street, first of all, residential land use. typically no more than two lanes and best, one lane in each direction with so stopsign controls. the real drivers of slow street success are kids and heavily used by kids, including children learning to bike and skateboard and use scooters for the first time and relatively subtle differences attend to attract more people and when we have more people, more children, they get more heavily utilized and that's been one of the critical issues that we've been trying to face in some neighborhoods, trying to find streets level
enough that will work. other critical criteria, emergency response. fire is a part of san francisco's memory and we take emergency response seriously as an agency. and we don't want to slow down fire tracks. and finally community support, slow streets work best when well stewarted by the neighborhood. so community support is a key driver. a couple of updates, we've removed the slow streets. as we promised, these are
experiments and meant to try them out and deciding, ok, that wasn't working and that included stockton street on the north slope of telegraph hill. it was too steep and not being utilized. so we're now in our phase three planning, figuring out a new array of corridors, what might actually work and i'll give you a heads up that we're planning to come back to the sfmta board on july 21st for on update on the question of particularly given the corridors that are wildly successful. is it possible to pull these slow streets together into a network and pull them together into a network that includes, for example, our protected bikeway networks and other key corridors like car-free market street, in order to give people in san francisco in a covid era the opportunity to walk, bike or skateboard for essential trips or to get to work, particularly as muni will struggle for the
next two years. we're looking forward to giving you strong updates there. and finally, i would add to the questions that were posed, we're working very closely for weeks with the health public week's street in the tenderloin. as i've repeatedly stated, the tendetenderloin is our highest concentration of vulnerable populations and violence in all of san francisco. it's our first priority. but we are in support of the healthy street's operation center who has been dealing with a whole array of complex social issues in the tenderloin, which they've made substantial progress on in the last week, helping to move people who had been sleeping on the sidewalks into healthy sleep sites and into hotels and that is giving us the ability to get in and do some additional work around creating additional space on
some key sidewalks in the tenderloin, again, in close coordination with the san francisco fire department who needs to be able to reach every single building with ladder trucks. given the height of buildings in the tenderloin and overhead wires and the fact it is also the greatest concentration of emergency response calls in all of san francisco, emergency services has been a critical design partner in the tenderloin and it is and one of the things that makes the neighborhood more complex to deal with. so i'm, fingers crossed, hopeful that in this week and early next week, we will be able to make substantial progress and we can come back at the next board meeting to give you a more thorough report. couple other items, the essential ride home program
sponsored by the department of environmental, we're partnering with them, has also been extremely useful for people in san francisco who have been left behind by the severe muni service cuts we made in april. the program provides a deep discount for essential workers, covering up to ten taxi rides a month, up to $70 per ride. we've received almost 400 applications and have been investing heavily in that program to make sure that our essential workers can get to work and get their essential trips done. other big news items is as probably all of you know, we started issuing actual citations after two weeks of warnings for street sweeping because the streets were filthy and they're finally getting clean again now that people in san francisco are
moving their car in order to allow the street sweepers to get to the curb. evacuee also seen a substantial increase in commercial activity now that businesses have been allowed to open and we're on a pause right now, but even as of last week, where we reverted back to, there is still substantial activity, given the success that we've had with the shared space's program. and so we're going to need to start enforcing meters. the rates will be substantially lower than they were in puerto pre- covid area. we're trying to ensure on one or two spaces are available in every lot and every parking garage. we're expected to make rate changes july 6th and warnings on july 13th. we want to give folks warnings.
there will be a lot of communication and that. findly, i should update you on shared spaces which have been getting a lot of attention in the press. we've been working very, very quickly to get those applications processed. as of last thursday, we have received 388 applications and managed to approve 217 of those. this is very rapid turn-around for government, particularly given the com complexity dealing with all of the grade and restaurants to set up in the parking lane. we're very happy with this program because it's allowing us to get activity off of the sidewalk and into the parking lane so we don't have to choose between pedestrian accessibility and comfort versus the survival of san francisco small
businesses. and that is all i have for these two weeks. happy to take any questions. >> great. directors, any questions for director tumlin? i know dr. hemminger, i know earlier you said you did. >> i have two, jeff. the first is, we've had some correspondence whether we have an ada issue of jay church not running through the tunnel and i had a report yesterday and got me thinking it's a broader problem. the stockton garage is felty any and i wonder if we have a cleaning system going from disuse to use? >> so the transit team is working hard on the jay church terminus issue. we're expecting just like what's
portal to do very quick and significant resign in order to ensure that the surface stops at church and market are fully accessible and provide good connectivity to the elevator. we have a similar situation at west portal avenue and west portal. we will not start up service if that rail service is not accessible. we're uncertain yet when we'll be able to extend to debosa and church. that is a part of our goal and right now, we're dealing with so many constraints and trying to throw every single available service hour that we have in order to restore as much of the network as we possibly can. we're not going to be able to serve every corridor. as you know and as you'll hear at length in the conversation later today. and tommcguire, can you speak
to the garage problem? tom, you are muted. >> so subtler stockton garage is one garage remaining open 24/7 within allowing for daily parking. we did use the pause in parking demand in the closure of many garages to give them a thorough cleaning and i know sutte stockton is one that have moved back. >> to director brinkman about senate bill 288, for those of
you listening, senate bill 288 is a measure that is moving forward in the state legislature that would reduce the california environmental equality act on transportation projects built in the public right-of-way and that do not increase the vehicle miles traveled. this could potentially remove a significant and pointless and local burden that the sfmta faces on its projects and could save us as much as two years in delay. and so from a staff perspective, we can certainly speak to the benefits and the potential unintended negative consequences and have been doing so together with other city departments in order to make sure that there is a coordinated san francisco response to that measure from
that would help us to move more licklquickly and efficiently wiu and the public over the next two years. >> so first, i'm heartened to hear that you say you'll be looking at by the 21st, some sort of network of the slow street's potentially and just one, one potential gap in that network i've been experiencing, i think we know the slow street is incredibly popular. as a connection to golden state park, which is an important amenity for everyone in the city right now.
if you think about a connection between the mission areas and the park, but there's a key gap along sanchez street and steiner street and people could use the connect and people just riding around a little built bit, it ss that wiggle we've designated as a prior grade for cyclists would so naturally lend itself to the slow street network. so that session from 17th to protected bike lane from church to sanchez, so from 17th up to market street, that would be a wonderful connection and a relatively short number of blocks but a key connection for
people to access a popular amenity. >> e road aland i have shotwel.. >> certainly one thing we're finding on several of the streets, i think 20th is a good example as is lane in the bayview is a need for more robust that materials that are less easily driven over or moved out of the way. >> or blown over by the wind right away. honestly, i've experienced that, as well. second, on the shared spaces, you mentioned we received almost 400 applications and 200 approved and just curious, do you anticipate that there are any that will not be approved? is it just a matter of sort of
time and consideration? is there anything that would make an application not successful? >> we're trying to prioritize immediate approval spaces that are obviously winners. we're having some challenges on street grade and cross slope, which will require additional scrutiny, as well as potentially design assistance that will likely take more time and tom mcguire, you may have more things to say. >> i think that was a good summary, jeff. the only other point i would add is that this has been an opportunity for the mta to flex its muscle in terms of its rather than trying to drag every applicant through any policy consideration.
consideration we could all dream of. an important thing we'll see now that we pushed through what jeff describes requests for repurposing of the curb lane, there are some districts and restaurants and merchants who want to do something more dramatic and impactful like taking over some or all of the street and that does require yaryardcoordination with the emy services. our priority is just that has been to say yes to as many things as possible and only when there's an obvious physical or operational barrier to operation. >> and then my last question, the nature of the slow streets, everything is changing so quickly now. it seems at some point we talked about the slow streets as really really, they're a substitute of transit lines eliminate as a rail transportation connection.
i think, dr. tumlin, from your report, these are used for recreational purposes close to home and that's an important amenity we're providing, too. i remember asking about soma, thinking it a park-poor part of the city and we had not eliminated any transit lines and we hadn't thought about transit. are we thinking about expanding the slow streets for the multiple uses for which they're being enjoyed to other parts of the city, as well? >> yes. we're trying to coordinate programs across every mode of transportation. so we started with slow streets in the sunset, because the sunset lost the most muni service and we expanded that work from that. we've heard from different districts, a very strong opinion and different priorities about what are the services that they most wanted. in district ten, we've heard
repeatedly, their highest priority is maintaining and improving transit service access because of how people get to their essential work but because of the dirth. similarly, in district 3, we heard many, many, many voices saying our priority is being able to reopen our small businesses, particularly the restaurants and to reopen those into the parking lane. we received applications in north beach and fisherman's wharf and we've been making sure that in those neighborhoods, we're delivering what the community most wants and also responsive to the peculiarities
of the geography and trying to find a residential street in district 3 is challenging, particularly one where there is neighborhood consensus on that. soma is another complicated neighborhood and we found that slow streets work best at a certain narrow dimension and over several continuous blocks. south of market, there are two kinds of streets, really wide and really narrow alleys run for a couple of blocks before they're interrupted. and so, in the south of market, we have more focused on really three things. one is the protected bikeway network. and we've been expansion on townsend and seventh. if you've not been out to watch the progress, the crews are out there. i just came from there.
so soma, we provide protective space for people on bikes. as i mentioned, we're not only retaining the transit service but proposing in the next agenda item transit-only lanes to protect transit from congestion in the south of market and then the third thing that we're doing in partnership with community-based organizations is where it's hard to do a sort of 24/7 for months at a time slow street and south of market, it's a great location along with the tenderloin for heavily programmed play streets. so this is something that, i think, we're finding is the right street approach, is providing for managed programmed events where we can make sure that we welcome the most vulnerable residents, also make them feel safe and provide a safe space for children. both neighborhoods have
extraordinarily high concentration of kids and simply throwing barricades out and calling it a day would be insufficient for most of the streets in the tenderloin or soma. so we're trying to again incorporate all of our programs to basically layer them on top of each other city-wide and direct the resources as they're most desired by each neighborhood and somehow pull it all together into a system while making it up as we go along. >> presumably faster. [ laughter ] >> much faster. making it up as we go along is the only way to adapt to the changes as quickly as we need to adapt to them. >> great. directors, any other additional questions before i open it up to public comment? seeingnone, moderator, can we open up the line comment on the
director's report? >> thank you, for members watching this meeting via sfgtv who wish to address the board on matters discussed by director tumlin, call (888)808-6929 and the access code is 996-116 996-. this is only formatters that director tumlin just discussed. >> operator: your question is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, presence 1-0. you have four questions remaining. >> first caller, if you would state your name or start talking. >> question: this is hayden miller and i just wanted to call in to say that i'm looking forward to see more slow streets, but we should work to make the ones that we already
have more successful by putting more barriers, especially at key intersections that will be busier. some intersections that are lacking signage right now that i think could be useful to address is 20th street and mission, they don't have barriers, page and divisdero, lake and 20t 20th avenue. just looking at key spaces where there is an arterial street crossing. we don't want cars turning on to our slow streets, especially with children on those streets where it creates a safety hazard. but i'm looking forward to seeing them rolled out and improved. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> again, for members, this is only for topics discussed by director tumlin.
speaker, give us your name and we'll start your time. >> question: can you hear me now? >> we can. >> question: i wanted to go back to the earlier comment about art curtis. i saw that in the sunday paper and i was terribly moved by it. art was a wonderful city employee, muni employee and a wonderful human being. he regularly used the motto and put it on memos, think service, it's our only business. he knew virtually every inch of the system and every nook and cranie. cranny. i'm not sure in two minutes i can could justice to his memory. i think it would be nice to here ihearfrom staff who can remembe.
we do a lot to put up plaques and name things after people. i'm not sure if that's appropriate here. perhaps just a poster with a smiling art curtis, reminding us of the importance of transit, transportation, and public service would be most useful and, you know, i just can't say enough good things about him. despite all the many problems that we're going through right now in the city and in society, i think he of all people would have relished the opportunity to solve some of these with the creativity and dedication to public service. whether it was signing
inspectors or determining reroutes or figuring out how to deal with -- (bell ringing). >> time, thank you. thank you, david. that was wonderful. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 11 questions remaining. >> question: i appreciate director tumlin's comments on slow street, protected bike lane, car-free network becoming a reality, as well as soma bike lanes and play streets. i'm heartened about terro direcr eakin's comments. regarding the stockton slow street cancellation, as a san francisco middle school teacher, i might consider a slow street as well as telegraph hill boulevard. however, as director tumlin noted, given the steep grades on
telegraph hills and side streets like green street, car-free columnuous, with the outdoor dining seems like the only policy intervention that will really bend the curve in district 3. however, adding parking protected bike lanes on north point would be appreciated, as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 11 questions remaining. >> question: my name is eric roselle. i'm a resident in the tenderloin and i wanted to thank director tumlin and the board of directors for paying particular interest in the tenderloin. i know it is a difficult neighborhood to work with in a lot of ways, but i am extremely grateful and i know other community members are, that the
mta is putting a special attention to the changes here in the tenderloin. and particular, some of the changes that are looking to happen here on jones street and turk, as well, and some of the programmed events that could possible happen on play streets. i know those are in discussion, as well. i just wanted to say thank you. please continue to put attention on the tenderloin and also say that the safe streets is a great idea. as an avid cyclist for over 26 years in the tenderloin and probably ridden well over 7,000 miles in the city, i'm extremely excited a the possibility of having a safe-street network that could connect throughout the city. i think this is an awesome opportunity and i hope that moves forward. again, thank you for all of the the work that you're doing and continue to do so. thank you so much. goodbye. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> operator: you have ten questions remaining. the person who has been un-muted. moderator, could you move to the next person? >> operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> question: yes, good afternoon, this is barry toronto. i appreciate director tumlin talking about the trip card program and the essential worker ride-home program. i have worked on the weekends
and i haven't seen many of those. i think they're used mainly during the day. however, i do give rise to a number of essential workers. i wanted to say that a lot of the essential workers live and work in the tenderloin and i think -- my concern is if you start blocking streets there, we will have very little access to picking up or dropping off these employees. , these workers who, a lot of them work at night. and then it could be an issue with access. and also, regarding 20t 20th street and lane, i have noticed at times to avoid not going through those blocks because of needing to have access to getting to pick up the passengers or to be able to have
an efficient way. i'm still waiting for that official list from the mt amount of slow streets. i was actually given a link to it, but it's not in a form that i could actually help distribute to fellow cab drivers and the taxi industry. and in closing with that, it would be great if you had signage a block away at major arterials saying that this particular street is closed to through traffic. if we're there and have to other place to go, that's a problem. >> thank you, mr. toronto. our next speaker, please. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining.
you have six questions remaining. >> question: hi. i just wanted to call and talk about director tumlin's announcement regarding the j line and l line at west portal -- church and market, respectively. i support those change, but i do strongly suggest that we figure out how to make the transfers how safe, especially for folks with disabilities or people with mobility impairment. as somebody able-bodied, transferring from church in that crazy intersection from the j streetcar to the subway is difficult, so i can only imagine what it's like for someone who is in a wheelchair or who has mobility issues. so i would like for those issues to be ironed out before that change is opportunity. done because those
transfers right now are very dangerous. i would suggest a lane diet on church approaching market, for example, to make that crossing safer for folks. furthermore, i would love to thank director testimon tumlin e board for the slow street. i think it's a slowing success. in regards to the soma, i don't want to speak for supervisor hainey, he seems open to closing for pedestrian's only. i would say to the mta, don't be shy. don't even make them shared streets, just pedestrian-only and at this point, the tenderloin, one of the neighborhoods that deserve walking infrastructure for the amount of kids that live in the tenderloin and i think we forget that kids do live in the tenderloin and look at the west side and think, oh, that's where
the kids live and that's not true. i support the slow streets and the mobility access. and slow streets is mobility and disability action. thank you. >> thank you. our next speaker, please. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> question: hi, my name is cliff barter. i live in petrilla hill. the slow street is a half a block from me that went in a couple weeks ago and i'm happy to see when the barriers have been moved out of the way and mta was quick to come and fix it. and so, i'm pretty happy with that. so far, the compliance isn't as strong as i would hope. there's still people driving through like it's any other street but it's a big improvement. i'm also really happy to see the shared space's program and i actually wrote an op-ed in the examiner in early may calling
for parklets and i want to call specifically on program to focus on repurposing the parking lane and sidewalks in my neighborhood on 18th street. there's an even mix of parking spaces being repurposed and it's important for restaurants to have access to this space. we can't effectively social distance walking down the sidewalk and someone who is able-bodied, it makes me wonder how someone in a wheelchair with other mobility challenges would be able to navigate many of the sidewalks and also some have been blocking off the bike parking. and so i think the default for shared spaces should be changing the parking lane and there should really only be a closure of the sidewalk when -- else
ensure that the elevators that go into the church street underground station are kept up and i mean kept up where we're really on top of that. and signage is essential. in ensuring options, whether to the underground station at changeup and market or to the ramps that are on the end line at church and debose. i pulled up the satellite image and saw them. so it's important to have good input. but we wanted to ensure seamless connects, especially people with disabilities at church and market and then go underground to ensure there are spaces on
the trains for persons with disabilities, especially going toward the embarcadaro. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: i'm sarah ogleby and i live in district 9. i wanted to support the comments made regarding barriers on the slow streets. my husband and i were walking in the commission and 20th area and as we were enjoying our walk, which was enhance bid slow streets, getting some exercise, we noticed cars were pushing through barriers.
this is an area that's traffic prone. and also, i wanted to say that i support the shared spaces in the parking area -- and parking spaces. i think that's important, as well as when we're enjoying our walks and getting some exercise, i'm concerned about social distancing on the sidewalks and i don't think that it's sufficient. and it's already, you know -- we're anxious enough with covid-19. it's growing cases are growing. paiplease stand by (.
fillmore with tableses on side in two places, to the point where there wasn't -- there wasn't a 5-foot path to travel for a person with a wheelchair to get down there. there's no way of not come to an unmasked person talking and eating. that's not very safe from an infection standpoint, and i'm wearing a mask to protect others. so my only option is to walk into the parking lane, which was reserved for pick-up and drop-off. because, of course, the restaurant is also doing a lot of pick-up business. and so i had to walk into california street, which is a four-lane, two lanes each way, high-traffic street. that wasn't exactly a great experience. so i have to either do that or walk across the street, to keep myself safe. that's i think not a good way to run things. i would prefer that -- >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> tables be in the parking lane
as much as possible and the sidewalk be kept clear for moving people safely and at a distance. >> thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> our next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is sam deutsche. i live in the mission. and i'm just calling for express both my support for the shared spaces program, but also to kind of implore the sfmta to kind of think a little bigger on this, because there's been lots of criticisms about space, taking up sidewalks, et cetera. i think looking at other cities that successfully have done things like this, like paris, taking more space away from cars, especially parked cars just sitting there and not providing any sort of economic output or purpose, on replacing those with tables, while maintaining safe spaces for people to walk on the sidewalks
and maintaining bike lanes and other forms of transit would be a good adivision -- addition to the program beyond what currently exists. >> thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> all right. our next speaker, please. >> next speaker, go ahead. >> hello? >> yes. >> hi. yes. i'm call being the emergency transit line. is this the appropriate time to call in? >> no, sir. that will be a few items later on the agenda. >> okay. thank you. sorry. >> sure. no worries. >> operator: you have one question remain. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is mike chad. i'm a member of the mcac.
and number one, i'm really heartened by the progress that the city is making around shared spaces and slow streets. i want to echo the comments about the wiggle room and throw out there -- okay, we do the streets, topography is different, we may consider possibly a slow wiggle or a slow crookedness, which still allows people the chance to kind of trigger the city, and doesn't require like a linear line. my second point is that i'd like the staff and directors to consider is that, you know, director tumlin -- director tumlin? the head of m.t.a. tumlin said that we have these constraints in district 6 specifically, tenderloin and the street plan. i would like staff and director to consider changing the street plan, so we do have neighborhood scaled streets in soma.
it's not inevitability that the streets are really wide and are really not conducive for people to come really walk through. and i think now is a great time to kind of think about the streets do serve the people who live nearby and not just three ways for people to pass through from the freeway to downtown. or what have you. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> okay, caller. >> hi. i am sloan kelly and awork the coalition on homelessness. director tumlin mentioned that vehicles are now being cited for parking restriction violations for street cleaning. all of you have received a letter from glide foundation, coalition on homelessness, the lawyers' committee for civil rights and many other
organizations and individuals. we request in that letter, and i'm requesting right now, that you do not tow nor cite vehicular dwellings. towing and citing of these vehicles typically has a traumatic effect on their owners, who often lose their home and end up living on the streets, because the cost of retrieving their homes is way over their personal budget. please do not cite nor tow vehicular dwellings for parking restrictions. if this needs to be an agenda item for the next board meeting, please put it on the agenda. thank you. >> thank you. we did get your letter. any additional other public comment? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> great. with that we will close public comment.
director tumlin, maybe you could just clarify -- i know that we weren't towing unless it was an emergency safety issue, is that still true? >> that's right. so all of the tow -- the tow policy that we talked about back in, it must have been february, where w collaborated for the people experiencing homelessness and people living in their motor vehicles, we're wanting to both minimize towing citywide, because we lose so much money on towing cars. we want to make sure we're particularly sensitive to towing vehicles that are the last resort housing solution for people who are otherwise unhoused. so those programs that we talked about back in february are continuing to move forward. that remains unchanged in the
conversation that we'll be having with the budget in the next agenda item. >> in terms of towing, though, right now, because i know with ticketing -- we were ticketing when we did start return to ticketing, we were focusing on people blocking fire lanes and that kind of stuff. i guess in terms of towing, previous tow policy that we'd tow vehicles for piling up tickets back in place or no? >> no. no. the only thing we're towing for are specific safety-related issues, where we are not able to contact the motor vehicle owner. >> okay. great. thank you. and director franklin, did you have a question. >> i know in my tame on the m.t.a. board, one of the things that i see that the public doesn't realize, how much contact m.t.a. staff has with other cities, transportation departments and transportation staff and since the pandemic started, that's expanded not
just into the u.s., but nationwide. i had not really honestly thought about the emergency access vehicle questions before when it came to seeing the pictures of cities that have closed spire streets to allow restaurants to put tables out. i just wanted to get some sense of how our city is handling that and is that something that all of the transportation departments are discussing and all of the fire departments are kind of weighing in together on? how would you then get emergency vehicle access down a street? >> so this is -- this is an important topic with our peers all over the world. and different cities and different countries take rather different approaches to emergency response access, as well as risk management. you know, in, for example, i think japan is probably the best example. east asian countries. because of the very different nature of the geography of
japanese cities, the japanese are famous for sizing their fire trucks as well as staffing their fire stations, in order to minimize the size needed, in order to be able to respond on all varieties of very skinny streets. they have just a completely different approach than we have in the united states. and other cities take a very different approach to risk, where they tolerate longer emergency response times or freighter challenge -- greater challenges for fire trucks to set up, put down the stabilizers and put out the fire. as i said before in my opening remarks, fire is a part of san francisco's ancestral memory. there's a reason why the phoenix is on our flag. and why san francisco has more firehouses per capita than most other places in the country.
we take emergency response access very seriously. the fire department must approve all of our street changes. and that's because we're san francisco. our buildings are made out of wood. we are a city prone to natural disasters. it's something that san francisco takes more seriously than other cities. so sometimes this results in slowing down the pace of our ability to deliver work. sometimes makes it very difficult, particularly in neighborhoods that require a great deal of emergency response access. and where the buildings are old, they're not sprinklered, the emergency egress is through the windows and down fire escapes, that actually impacts what it is possible to design in the street. so that requires the sfmta and
the san francisco fire department to collaborate closely and take different approaches to design, than happens in other cities. it's part of the nature of being in san francisco. >> great. thank you. >> any additional predominants opredominant --comments on the s report, before we move on to the regular agenda? seeing none, we'll close this item and move on to our regular calendar. >> madam clerk, item 8. >> sorry, my bad. >> there is no report today. so before we move into the regular calendar, i would just like to restate for members of the public that when i call the next item and call the items, if you are listening by sfgovtv.org, please cal (888) 8.
make sure you're in a quiet location and you turn off any radios,s. if you're live streaming via sfgovtv.org, please mute the sound at the appropriate time. the chair will ask the phone lines to be opened and if you wish to comment, you will be prompted to press 1, 0. you will be added and hear that you are entering the question-and-answer time. but this is the public comment period. you'll be queued up in the order which you pressed one and zero and there will be an automated voice. when you hear the automated voice, please begin talking. we'd appreciate it if it would state your name. and then i will start the two minutes. i will let you know when there's 30 seconds remaining and when your time is up, the moderator will put the speaker back on mute.
item 8, the regular agenda. item 9, approving the fiskar year 2021 and 2022 revised operating budget in a littles of $1.251 million for operating expenditures, $248 million and $111 million respectively for capital expenditure. for a new board operating reserve, certifying that the two budgets are adequate to make substantial progress toward meeting performance standards, authorizing changes to various fires and rates. and let me move down. i'm not going to read all of it temperature approving the sfmta title vi fair equity analysis. amending division to rates, fares and signs. approving a waiver of fares for new year's eve 2021 and 2022.
authorizing the director to implement short-term experimental fares, retroactively waiving, concurring with the control's certification that some services can be practically performed by private contractors at a lesser cost than to provide the same services with city employees. and authorizing the directer to make necessary corrections to the revised operating budget. >> at some point you'll have to explain to me why certain things get called out. with that i'll turn over to staff and have leah and jonathan present. >> thank you very much. i'm leo leavenson, the chief financial officer for the san francisco m.t.a. and i want to really thank you for this time now. for this update on the budget, which was so recently approved in april, but because of the
circumstances that we're all aware of, we need to come back to you with this proposed update. next slide, phillies. -- please. next slide, please. next slide, please. so this update has five parts to it. we're going to start with the baseline budget that was approved on april 21st, so we can explain the changes that have happened since then. and we are going to be providing the data insights that my terrific budget staff, led by jonathan righters, has been putting together to really inform our look forward into this really unprecedented period. we'll be providing a fiscal update with the revenue trends that we've seen since april 21st. and what that means for the budget in terms of the reduced sources that we have available for it. we'll be providing --
summarizing the recommended budget update and talking about what this means in terms of service. and different scenarios that we're looking at in the future, both related to service and the fiscal implications with the agency. next slide, please. next slide, please. >> it's jonathan, it's on slide 3. >> i guess my view is delayed. so just a brief summary of the main takeaways, and i turn it over to jonathan. this budget that we're bringing back to you has 30 -- the change from april 30th approved budget is $30 million reduction in fiscal year '21, for our budget scenario. and the savings, the reduction in expenditures is primarily on
the [indiscernible]. this means that we have to hold additional positions vacant, in order to balance this scenario. this reflects two major things. and one is the continuing -- in our revenue outlook, compared to what we were looking at. we're seeing the implications of the shelter-in-place. and the economic downturn. proposed extension of fare increases that were originally anticipated in the april 21st budget. there is, of course, great uncertainty. we can't emphasize enough that we have to, as a public agency develop a budget. and we do it with the best information we have available and the best thinking about the future. but this is an unprecedented time. so we're very well aware that we have to watch closely, so see
what happens, particularly in ridership demand, as we enter the new economic period. woe don't know exactly how it's going to look. the other major -- [indiscernible] affects our revenues is what will be the public health requirements for people riding transit. it has a big difference on the capacity of our systems, given the number of service hours we've reduced. how many people can we move in our system and how much revenue do we have to support that service. the budget that we're proposing to you still retains a 10% contingency reserve. so given the uncertainty, we are keeping this in-reserve to deal with potentially even worse news than in this budget scenario. we are going to be monitoring our revenues and expenditures very closely, as we move along. we'll be reporting back to you at least quarterly or more often if necessary. and we will be telling you what our options are, if our revenues do come in even lower than this
reduced scenario that we're bringing forward with you today. we take very, very seriously our responsibility to be transparent, to be watching and to be knowledgeable about where we are with our resources and what we can do with those resources. and finally not a bullet point on this slide, but one thing that we'll really be emphasize, this two-year budget can only be balanced, we can only continue to provide even the level of service we're envisioning here with a number of one-time sources. very largely this is thanks to the federal government, cares act. thank you particularly to nancy pelosi in being a strong advocate for public transit. that is really what is helping us cover a portion of our fare loss. we don't believe anything like that will continue. we're using that to help to continue provide service in the two-you're budget period. and we're drawing upon other revenues that we have been very
fortunate to receive during ten years of economic expansion in san francisco. and fortunately we didn't spend every year we got during the ten years of expansion, which allowed us to have a surplus. [indiscernible] >> i'm sorry to interrupt. excuse me. excuse me. >> yeah. >> leo, excuse me. you're breaking up and we're not able to hear you. >> okay. well, if i talk slowly, can you hear me now? i'll just -- i'd like to turn this over to jonathan righters, our senior budget manager he and his team have done tremendous work to support the rest of this preparation. >> thank you, leo. good afternoon, directors.
senior budget manager with the agency. just to quickly update you. i'm going to name the slide. in case people are following at home and we can be on the same place. i'm on slide 4. just as a reminder, our budget has been based on values since the very beginning. that the transportation should be safe, that we want to integrate equity into everything we do at the m.t.a. we are constantly working towards decarbon nation of the transportation system and providing excellent customer service to anybody who uses any mode within san francisco. one thing that we had added, and that we did make sure to integrate into this update to the budget, is that we have the services and we're spending the money in areas that will support a strong economic recovery for san francisco. so there are new programs related to covid-19. some of which you discussed today and -- the director's report. but that is another key value that we have integrated into the
budget and it will be important as we move forward over the next two years. just as background on the budget overall, in april -- on april 21st, m.t.a. board did approve the budget, consistent with the charter. we did make clear at that time this would be a baseline to which we would work from as we get more information on the state of the economy, on the state of service and the state of the public health emergency here in san francisco. that budget was $1.28 billion and $1.34 billion in fiscal year '22. we showed you losses. we'll cover those again. the revenue losses $212 million. and increased retirement costs. the two things i do want you to notice is in that budget, the controls were on expenditures. so the new expenditures and programs, related to the muni working group, managing congestion, a lot of those new programs were approximately $23 million. and had we seen additional revenue losses, as you'll see on the right, dealing with those
revenue losses, the $21.5 million, we would have canceled those programs. that was our control in the first round of budget. i will update you on where we stand currently fiscally with regard to our revenue losses. it is more than that. but that was our solution at that time. so now let's move into some of the data and insight. some of the things that we look to-go make decisions about revenue and our operations over the next two fiscal years. so, first, just kind of an overaveraging situation. we do anticipate there's going to be a drop in ridership. we looked at cities across the world. we've looked at cities such as auckland in new zealand, that is now a covid-free country. and there is about an average 20% loss across a lot of those areas, even in taiwan, we're still seeing a drop in ridership in the 15% to 18% level. we're also seeing, and we should note, that post-covid or even in an extended period without any
type of vaccine, the workplace is shifting. for youer people will be commuting for regular trips, especially in san francisco using muni, but they might switch to occasional trips. so we have taken that into account and i'll show you what that looks like. we do expect and we have seen in different areas of the country and the world that demand is following service increases. so as we release more service, there will be riders that will go with that service. so in our ridership estimates and revenue estimates, we have accounted for that. and finally i'll show you some data that is showing that we aren't seeing a split in mode and that there are people who are choosing to drive versus taking public transit. so we're seeing this divergence from the prior baselines, with regard to mode choice. and we did take that into consideration while projecting both our fare revenues and our parking and traffic revenues. so here are the three sources of data we used. it was an ibm business survey that was done looking at 25,000
people. and specifically asked about their transportation preferences. we used google mobility reports, that allowed to us look at data across the world and in the united states, down to the bidding level, that helped us understand trips and the destination choice of various people. and then we looked at apple mobility reports. so this is also real-time data, which gave us a sense on what people are choosing via mode. so as an example, if somebody is using apple maps and they want directions on where they're going, they'll select a mode by which they want to make that trip. so we've taken a look at that data in making some of our assumptions today. overall from the ibm business survey, so you'll see when asked, respondents did say straight out, those who regularly did use subway or trains, that they no longer would. looking at those who regularly use public transit, but would they loose it less often and not as often as today, 28% did say they would use it less often. so we have taken that data into
consideration. with regard to other modes, 17% of people did say they would drive more and use their personal vehicle more. so that's another data point for us to consider. with regard to ridesharing and t.m.c., it was interesting that more than 50% of people said that they would use them less or even stop using them. so something to take into consideration. but fewer people said the same thing. 24% only said that when considering taxis. so this kind of gives you a sense of how people are feeling all across the modes. and what decisions they might make in the future about their transportation choices. here is an example of what we looked at with regard to the community mobility report. so this is san francisco specifically. you'll see -- and this again collects the data of where people are going. so the left, the retail, grocery, parks, transit.
places and residential shows what their location is. at any particular time. transit reflects bus stops, subway stations you'll see a peak decline at 74% by early june, we were at 67%. but most important here to observe is that there's a divergence as people are starting to return to their workplaces. as you see in mid-may through early june, for the two-week period, you started seeing a divergence where essentially before people going to their workplaces, were the essential workers who largely were using transit. so we'r starting to see a divere where people are going back to the workplace, but transit is not trending in the same direction as it was prior to that. so that's a data point that we took into consideration. here you'll see a comparison to different cities around the world. so this is slide 12. san francisco, new york, los angeles, seattle, london, taiwan and auckland.
you'll see that taiwan overall, one of the best examples that we've noted taipei in the world, has about a steady 20% loss on ridership. it has been declining into the upper teens the last i looked at it. it was around 16%. you'll see auckland, which is the light blue line at the bottom. they went through a steep decline. the country now is covid-free supposedly with no cases. and so as they reopen their transit system, and increase service over a period of time, you'll see that step-up, as more service was released, there was more ridership and people choosing that particular service. here is the apple mobility trends with regards to driving. you'll see different cities again. one thing we wanted to note here, you'll see san francisco in the dark blue line. so returning to our prior levels of driving. and that choice of mode. but when you look at seattle, you'll see they have gone beyond the baseline. so they're past where they were
before. they are now heading back to where they were at over 40% on that choice. you'll also see that there's a divergence that's happening as well, that i will talk about on our next slide. you'll see specifically in san francisco, on slide 14, that prior to the covid emergency, that we, you know, this is pretty standard, the same information that we showed you during the board workshops. definitely a divergence in mode, but the choices are relatively even. but you will see as we're coming back and recovering from covid-19 and people are making choices about transportation, and reopening the city, that we are seeing a major divergence. so driving is definitely recovering faster, walking is recovering faster. transit not as much. so you're not seeing that overall same trend in choices that people were making before. you're clearly seeing that driving is tending to be a preference in this current environment. you'll see here this trend is
pretty consistent across other cities that we looked at. so seattle, los angeles, auckland and new york. so again that divergence, where you see modal choice but was more equalized prior to the covid-19 public health emergency. post that you're seeing divergence in transportation choice, something we need to take that account as we plan for transportation services into the future. so how did that integrate into our overall fiscal situation and how do we make choices based on that data? so this is what we did. we did relook at all revenue sources and we updated them. we are projecting a 19% revenue loss across all sources. so that -- that does make us one of the worst city departments. our sources are taking a severe hit. as leo pointed out, the cares grant, and the cares act did provide a one-time source to back fill that. i will show you the impact of
that sortly. but what has happened since april 21st is since we were using so much in one-time sources in fiscal year '21 and we don't project that our regular enterprise revenues will recover in time, we've actually been solving for a major deficit in 2022. on april 21st, the losses it were mainly in the first year of the two-year budget and we corrected for that. we actually extended some of the cares act money into the second year and thought the revenues would have recovered in time. now we don't think revenues will recover in time. so this has caused a larger deficit. but with that said, there's still tons of unknowns. i will cover those at the very end of the presentation. we were conservative in development of the budget. and we considered many different options, which i will also
cover. there are a lot of unknowns for us. we tried to be conservative and ask a lot of resiliency to the budget. as leo has said, the budget is definitely not sustainable, but it is resilient, depending on what turns out to happen in the next 6, 12, 18 months. with that said, our structural deficit is increasing and will increase. so not raising fares absolutely has an increase to our structural deficit. i'm sure the board is not prizer surprised by -- not surprised by that. they were declining before the covid-19 emergency. they're declining even faster and will recover even slower. so we took all of that into account when developing the updates to the budget for today. slide 18 shows the update to the economic downturn scenarios over the five-year period. we projected total revenue loss from what we had shown you prior of $568 million. slide 19 is where our revenue
baselines were on april 7th. so what this is showing you is what we thought was the best-case scenario in revenue. this is after the board workshop, we sharpened our pencils, we integrated the new policies we discussed. we considered state policy. what i will say with regard to these next three slides, these are in constant dollars. so they will not add up perfectly to the budget. but they're meant to give you an apples-to-apples comparison as to where the revenue was. prior to the covid-19 emergency, they were flat. this is the budget you did approve, where we did start and plugged in a decline to the revenues across all of our sources, with the information that we did have at the time. slide 21 shows where we think it is now. you will see we've integrated a severe decline across all of the revenue sources. parking and traffic being the
biggest dip and based on the data about transportation choicers, mobile choices and destination. fare revenue continues to decline. and even at the point of recovery, nowhere near match fare revenue levels from prior years. anything before fiscal year '19. our state operating grants are always a risk. i believe we've been pretty conservative. and the state will keep our assistance pretty stable from what i understand. it is tied to the state of the economy, so that can change at any moment. this is the impact of the cares grant. so that's slide 22. you will see that those declines in revenues are essentially covered, largely in fiscal year '20. that's the $197 million that the m.t.a. has already received. so we will close the year in balance. we will have a little bit of a fund balance at the end of this fiscal year. that was due to our expenditure
controls, which i will cover shortly. you'll see the declines, we used the full amount in fiscal year '21, not what we had planned on april 21st. and then operating grants go right back down to $177 million. so again the cares act and our other one-time sources will not hold us long enough, so our regular revenues to recover. so for that reason, we did have to look at expenditure reductions and other options to balance the budget over the next two years. this is where we were again on april 21st. i do want to point out one error. at the april 21st budget, the top right box that says $215.5 million, that was actually an error. we had not accounted for changes in operating grants when we had given you that number. the bottom number stayed the same. so the 1.2%, the .4%, the $21.5 million. those were correct.
but i did want to make sure that we corrected and have given you the correct numbers. so in the buchanan mall bulbouts tha-- in the budget that you adopted, we corrected for a loss of $212 million. when plugging in the cares act, left at $21.5 million, which we did resolve. you'll see the bigger part of that deficit, again within fiscal year '21 at that period, and fiscal year '22, just a half a percent where we had believed that revenues would have recovered in time and this there would have been an economic recovery and we would have gotten to balsam point in the -- gotten to balance at some point in the future. you'll see total revenue losses in fiscal year ' '21, revenue ls in fiscal year '226.5%, for a total revenue loss to the m.t.a. of $332 million over the two fiscal years. you'll see in the bottom boxes, after we consider not just cares, but other one-time revenue sources to close that gap, we still have a reduction
we need to deal with. 3.5% in fiscal year '21. as i said, the difference year, they were greater in the second year of the budget. so again we would have to reduce 4.4% in expenditures to balance what revenues we would have. so we needed to correct for $104 million. you had already dealt with about $20 million of that. we needed to reduce another $80 million to balance the budget in the next two fiscal years. this is after applying about $21.4 million in savings. we expect it's probably going to be a little bit more, maybe up to $25 million. but we won't know until we close all of the books in the next month. but we are projecting about $21 million in savings from fiscal year '20. what i do want to make very, very, very clear is that the cares grant we got in the first
time did not cover all of our revenue losses, which again did exceed $200 million. and did exceed the $197 million we received. however, we did put fiscal controls in place with regard to purchasing and hiring and overtime. so that did result in lowering our total expenditures. so we will take that $21 million into fiscal year '21 to help with the revenue losses in the next two fiscal years. so you'll see what our new budget targets were below that. on slide 27, we got a suggestion that we show kind of what happened over time. i want to show you that on the 28th of january, so the blue column, we already have a structural deficit. so the expenditures were going to exceed the $1.2 billion.
we prepared a budget on the 7th, which was not adopted, right. again our best-case scenario of bumping up revenues about to $90 million, so that was the policy changes around parking, it was the fare increase proposed, it was shifting more development impact fees, kind of a stable $10 million over time. so you'll see that $10 million is there, that wasn't there before in development impact fees. a little bit of a use of fund balance. so, you know, we built up the revenue the best we could to deal with the new programs that we had laid out in january and february and march. we then reduced revenue on the 21st. so you'll see that reduction. this is only the fiscal year '21 amount to give you a sense of scale. you'll see where the revenues went down in various areas. now you'll see the current where we are. so after we considered all of the data, we've considered the
state of the economy, we've consulted with the city controller's office. we've looked at financial data from transit agencies all over the united states. we've had meetings with our various rating agencies. this is where we think we can end up. and where we will be comfortable. here's the same on the expenditure. you'll see where that ended up. so again expenditures exceeded revenues. so there was 66 structural deficit. we balanced the budget on the 6th and the 21st. the difference here, you'll see a little bit lower than the prior slide, that is the board reserve, which we are not assuming for expenditures. and i'll cover what that is in a slide or two. which is this one. so just -- this is complicated. but honestly slide 29 is the easiest way for us to explain how we created stability in the
budget, that we would like you to approve today. the top thick bar shows the four largest revenue sources that we have at the m.t.a. the general fund, parking and traffic seems to be fine. operating grants from the federal and state government and transit fares. the top line shows essentially the proportion of the revenue projection that we currently have. so on the prior slide, you would have noticed in the last year, that revenues are higher than expenditures. and so that top line reflects that revenue amount. the next line down, with the thick-colored bars, reflects how we programmed those revenues for expenditures. so the appropriate expenditure, the expenditure limit. for all of the services that we'll be providing the public in san francisco, the staff, procurement, supplies. we only programmed up to those proportioned amounts below, with that kind of hash line in the end with what we call budget plus revenue, meaning there's certain sources that we think
could potentially be better and those two are parking and traffic and operating grants. but with the same line, transit fares could actually be worse. so that is not budgeted for an expenditure. but it's budgeted for a board reserve. so if we are projecting let's say two quarters from now that those revenues will come in at a level where we're at budget plus revenue, we will come back to the m.t.a. board and we'll offer some recommendations on how those dollars can be spent. it might go right back into transit service, depending on how demand is at the -- you know, at the end of the calendar year. but those are not budgeted for expenditures. and our service plan is not built on those revenues being available in the budget. below the thin line was a different scenario and risk that we considered in developing the budget. now we me state for the record. it looks like the general fund line is equal and stable across those rates.
the reason being is we receive our general fund estimates from the controller's office. and so they've given us a fixed amount. that's the amount we put in the budget. so we don't do an official estimate for the general fund. we just receive our official estimate from the controller's office. it is possible that the general fund will come in less than budgeted. and that is taking into consideration in these different scenarios. but we built them largely around our own revenue estimates for our own sources. so the first scenario is where budget plus revenues are realized, meaning parking and traffic come in higher, that could happen if more people shift to driving, more people use the parking garages, rather than take transit. but at the same time transit fare revenue declines. because we don't see the ridership to be able to collect the fares we need to balance the budget. so parking and traffic and operating grants come in higher, but transit fares come in lower. so in that scenario, the budget is still balanced and all things are equal and even.
the second scenario, a little bit worse, is that due to ridership constraints and i'll talk about that a little and jeff might want to add to that, based on the number of people that we can physically put on each with us or train, we don't collect enough transit fare. it's impossible to do that. i'll cover this, it's dependent on four elements. one of those elements are transit fares. and so in that case, transit fares do not come in high enough, but again parking and traffic comes in even higher than we expect, operating grants come in even. there is a scenario in which this is possible. and the budget is still balanced and in that case, we might not use the budget plus revenues. we might not release the reserves. we've assumed expenditures at that lower revenue level. the last scenario is the worst-case scenario. so again i said that we wanted to build the budget around resiliency. whatever happens we have enough cash, enough revenue to essentially provide a stable
sense of transportation services will be in the city over the next 12 months. that's important in helping to create a stable baseline for our economic recovery. so in this situation, transit fare collapsed like nowhere near -- i mean, the best we make $50 million. all of the revenues come in at the lowest levels, essentially what we're approving in the budget. in that case, we would come back and we would use the 10% reserves. so this is what we're saving the 10% reserve for. if all of our revenues come in at the lowest levels and transit fares collapse, this is when we want to use our 10% reserves. so we are saving that for this level of uncertainty. we budgeted expenditures to a pretty conservative level of revenue, the highest risk is in transit fares. but we're being very conservative with parking and traffic revenue, which could actually come in at budget or
maybe a little bit higher. so that's the plan. working around the data. so with that here's the budget where it stands. all of our revenue sources are there and in place. two i specifically want to point out that leo brought up, is that you will see the use-of-fund balance in fiscal year '22. the transit development line -- [indiscernible] remember i said a stable -- [audio line for speaker going in and out] >> jonathan, may i interrupt.
jonathan, your sound quality is diminishing. you may want to turn your video off, so that we can hear you better and focus on the screen. >> okay. is that a little bit better? >> sounds like it, yes. >> okay. so here again. transit development impact fees. you'll see that we're using $45 million in the second year. this is a huge use of one-time resources. this will not come back by fiscal year '23. this only gets us through the fiscal year and again create stability on the expenditure side and stability with regard to service. here are the expenditure sides of the budget. so salaries, benefits, capital spending, debt service, all of our normal expenditures that you've seen through the budget process. we always do a deposit to our general liability reserve. you'll see there the board operating reserve. so those are the amounts, meaning that there is a scenario in which revenues could come in higher and at those amounts.
if again the controller's office certifies that that were true, based on our revenue estimates in that situation, the board would then make a decision on how those would be used. the capital expenditure is use of one-time spend. the normal shift in proposition b, general fund dollars for capital projects and development impact fees that we appropriate for capital use through the operating budget. so slide 32 covers our use of one-time fund balance. the plan is generally the same. the only difference and update is you'll see the $317 million, which is a bit higher than the $293 million that we had told you about in prior budgets. this again is due to anticipated savings we expect to have from fiscal year '20. that increases our beginning fund balance. the reserve requirements is reduced by $5 million from the prior budget of $125 million.
and you'll see the layout, capital project reserves, because we do expect our c.i.p. revenues to go down, but we still have construction contracts that we need to pay for, the amounts for the operating budget, you'll see that $52 million there in the second column. the parking meter replacement project, which is absolutely critical infrastructure for us to replace. the back fill of shifting proposition b we need that to close project costs. and then just keeping up our facilities in a reasonable state of good repair, a lot of our facilities, as i have said, are over 100 years old. and this is the minimum requirement, just to keep them running and functional for the service we need to put out on the street. in year two you'll see the reserve, that $3 million just means we need to make an additional deposit to the reserve. that's an additional $3 million. you will see, though, at the very end, we are at zero fund balance. so we will not be able to tap into the source for ongoing
expenditures after fiscal year '22. so we will be at zero. on the labor side, as leo noted, one of the key elements of balancing the budget, you had to cut expenditures. so revenues were declining. so we just had to absolutely cut the expenditures of the agency. and we had cut everything back kind of in the first round. so we had to look to labor savings to do that, a critical, critical element of the budget was for us to do everything possible to avoid layoffs. and so this takes us to that bare minimum. we needed to realize about $16.5 million in labor savings. in the prior budget, we showed you an attrition rate, meaning the estimate of the total positions at the m.t.a., that are always taken, just sort of our average vacancy rate projected over the fiscal year, you'll see it wasn't 575, we've increased that to well over 600
for the remaining two fiscal years. so we will hold more positions vacant. as people retire, w -- we will t back fill the positions. what that does to the bottom line is you'll see that there is a bump-up in overall f.t.e., especially in the second year. the first bump-up in year one is parking control officers, related to the implementation of the parking and traffic changes we've discussed, to manage congestion. so again this is all related to the data i showed you prior about the impact of covid-19 and the choices around transportation. we will need more parking control officers. those are actualized and essentially made full-time positions. so 18 is a fraction of the total. they become full 1.0 in the second year in fiscal year '22. in addition, their positions for the start-up of the central subway, like we must have -- we
must have station agents. we must have custodians. we must have the maintenance and ways staff to be able to maintain the new rail and overhead. those were always planned and we have delayed them as far as we could. again we will manage the attrition. so other positions will go vacant. but net that is an increase in the staffing for the m.t.a. i already covered this. it's in here twice for some reason. probably because i wanted to focus on this. so you'll see here the use of one-time sources to balance the budget. so we are doing everything that we, your finance budget experts told you not to do on january 28th of 2020. we are doing the balanced budget. we are using more development impact fees than we should for ongoing operations. one-time purchases, supplies, things that can be one-time in the budget and we are using a
lot of fund balance to balance the budget and manage our costs. this is at the same time where transit fares, operating sources and parking fees and fines have been declining and are declining. so this will result in a fiscal year 2023 beginning deficit of $70 million to $100 million. so our structural deficit will increase. as the economy gets better, it will shrink a little. i'll show thaw. but by fiscal year '23, we will have a problem that we cannot overcome without cutting service. it will just come to that. we have done everything to the bare bones. we have developed a service plan to support a robust economic recovery in the city. with -- as of right now, this is where we stand and this is what it looks like. this was our structural deficit at the beginning of the budget process. so you'll remember that 66 and
$77 million. this is the result of after the budget. so what i want to show you here is the purple bar reflects the difference between expense, which is the line and the bar which is revenue. the purple bar is one-time revenue that we are using to balance the budget. the orange is the capital revenues ongoing, so those are development impact fees, to some extent, and our proposition b, population-based general fund, which we are switching from capital, meaning creating more repair problems and switching it over to operating. so you will see the scale of that and you will see when that purple bar goes away in fiscal year '23, there's $70 million gap. however, what i want to stress is this is what it was when the planned fare increases were included in the budget. when we did assume the automatic
indexing. without the fare increase, this increases this by $20 million. so our structural deficit now, for fiscal year '23, is projected to be $96 million. so we are at the point where there's very little choice, but to identify some of other sustainable source to cover the ongoing operations of the m.t.a. remember this cost doesn't even reflect the full cost of the m.t.a. we will have a more limited service over the next 6 and 12 months. as the expectation grows, the structural deficit will only increase. $96 million in fy23. you will see we have not solved any of our long-term structural problems. we're right back to where we started. 24 and 25 just reflected fact that hopefully the economy will recover by then. but the ongoing structural deficit still remains. on the state of the repair side, hopefully in july or august,
we'll bring forward the state of good repair report, which essentially gives you all the data on the state of our capital infrastructure. so i know that as we've talked about the budget, the board has shown interest in this data and what it means. the preliminary information out of that report is that our backlog will increase by $110 million over the next year, which means there will be $110 million of infrastructure that should have been repaired, that should have been replaced, that is not going to be repaired or replaced. and to just keep the status quo. and this means to maintain a backlog, a working backlog of $3.24 billion we need to spend annually on state of good repair. that is not enhancements, that's just to maintain our existing infrastructure. so with that the final budget is proposed at $1.27 billion for
fy21. that's essentially pretty flat. it's flat. the fiscal year controls will remain in place from fy20, including overtime management, management of our procurement and managing our respiratory. and a hiring it freeze. only the most critical positions will be reviewed and released to move forward largely with the transportation recovery plan. and to prepare us for the future that we think might show up in the next 12 months to the best of our ability. we did assume budget plus in the form of additional revenues that are possible. those again are parking revenues and operating grants. but there are no planned expenditures against those revenues. they are budgeted strictly as reserves. in case of absolute collapse of our revenue sources, we still have $125 million available to cover us in fy21 and hopefully
in fy22, if it becomes necessary. again we're leaving the 10% reserve for the worst-case scenario. so with regards to that, you know, what kind of service can we expect? like what are we buying? the next two years and what are we planning for, based on the data that i showed you. first, i think we made this year clear. the transit system will be different. we have noted changes to bus service, rail, making those improvements, transit-only lanes to maximize the efficiencies that we can realize across the city. we are continuing to work on the number of people that can safely move on our buses and trains. so we're looking at making the ambassador program perfect, how we can get people what they need to get to where they need to get to for both essential and other trips. the safety is definitely our highest priority in doing that. we continue to expand walking and cycling through the slow streets program, which we
discussed today. so we will continue to do that an provide people with the maximum amount of choices to get to where they need to. and again consistent with that value, of supporting a robust recovery in san francisco, we're funding the shared spaces program and the time to be able to support going shopping and commercial corridors over the next year. and probably beyond. here are just some actions to date. so the ambassador program, the enhanced cleaning, we're moving forward with getting additional car cleaners in place. [ please stand by ]
weekend to go grocery shopping, to get to a park and fresh air and when they can and when they can stay safe and the orange bar is a little bit more realistic level of ridership, the purple prairie reflects what the ridership is with the essentially getting to that 70% of service but the restrictions we would have if we have to maintain social distancing on the buses. you just physically cannot carry enough people it. it is impossible. so those four legs are, the operators, and the number of fte to drive the buses. the number of revenue hours. the amount of service that 70% goal that we've discussed by the end of the calender year.
the number of riders. how many people will follow that demand and that service and how much demand that will the fare revenue and all they have to commonsense to some equilibrium. the black line is kind of what we think could cap. what that reflects is the step up of service, which we discussed, opening, reopening rail in august and preparing for the school year to start. iin august or september. it follows the increases in service hours. you are bell oat original. you are starting more a lot the purple. there's a dip-down in december that has to do with the holidays. it's corrected for seasonality. we hit our 70% service goal meaning 70% of scheduled hours
in that january and february period that we've discussed and you will see there's a bit of a fluctuation so we never it is less than that. this is definitely an optimistic scenario and again there's the lots of factors we need to take into consideration when considering what ridership must look like but we needed to run a mold to get a scenes of how people might behave. the step up is consistent with the following demand is consist with a lot of other cities we're seeing and they're taking into considerations the choices here in san francisco. it's just the basics of the budget. again, a lot leaner but still focusing on the post covid world building reliability in the service of people can expect and supporting the restoration and hopefully economic growth here in san francisco. equity of course is a key element of our values and so the office of equity and inclusion
is still included in the budget to a little itsed extent. exten. additional ppos to manage plan congestion and traffic management is also in the budget. the muni transit assistance position for that expanded embassador program is assumed in the budget and moving forward with some type of more to consume and subway start up and we still plan for our central subway towards the end of calender year 2021. so the positions related successfully are slow streets and shared spaces programs are assumed in the budget and then lastly, waving all taxi fees and continuing the essential trips program. lastly, is just the unknown. there are a lot of things we
still know. we did not plan for a full virus resurgence and we're seeing more cases across the nation and in california. so we didn't assume a complete second shut down. what if the fines don't increase and hit the baseline. we didn't assume for that. we are lower than prior budgets but what if they're lower than that. supply team issues and our ability to provide that service and social distancing and supplies all the these operational issues we can't predict a budget to those different scenarios i shared with you earlier. those are the things in the budget i'm going to stop sharing. i do want to end and thank my team because we built in a
period where we sent sex to seven months and we were doing this for six to seven weeks and they worked a ton of hours and i'm just a talking head. they all do the work and they really should get all the credit. our objective was stability, sticking with our values and supporting economic recovery in the city and trying to avoid layoffs and trying to create some resiliency so hopefully we made the case to you that we did that. >> i want to thank you so much for your extensive presentation. i think it's a lot to absorb. thank you and leo and your whole team for hard work. you really have done an extraordinary job putting together all of the scenarios with all the data and i'm so impressed with that. obviously it's very depressing news. i'm going to open up for public comment.
before i do that, i wanted to have directors ask any clarifying specific questions. if there are no questions i'll move to public comment. any questions? great. with that let's move to public comment and can you open up the call lines. >> your conference is in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press one then zero. you have six questions remaining. >> if you are on sfgtv dial the phone number and the access code and 1-0. go ahead, first caller. >> i just wanted to speak. my name is milo and i wanted to speak in support of the bus-only pilot program. >> that's the next item, sir. that is the next calender item.
>> we're on number nine. >> yes. >> sounds good. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> next speaker, please. you have eight questions remaining. >> we are talking about our amazing budget. [laughter] >> it's david fillpaw. i appreciate johnathan's comprehensive presentation. i don't believe this revised version of the budget was presented to the cac nor was there an online budget webinar, i think, it would be helpful to do both of those things to explain what is proposed in the
works. and to take questions and have dialogue limit today two minutes. there's a lot of important fiscal and policy stuff buried in here. and reports and discussion you should have more on the budget and policy forums going forward if we're going to continue like this for an unknown period of time. i support actually a lot of what is in here, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. having follow the agency for oh, i don't know, the last 40 years or so. i am concerned about it, at least one item in here. that's actually the appropriated board reserve. i would not appropriate those funds. i would leave them in reserve and have staff come back to the board and the board of supervisors to appropriate those
funds should the need arise. it's important to maintain fiscal controls and transparency at this point and i'm also very concerned that by spending down the reserves in this way, it trades off the current system for the future. it puts us in a terrible place two years from now and really degrades the state of good repair and i'm concerned about the transportation system going forward. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> i appreciate stuff and the presentation on the fiscal situation and my number one priority is making sure we don't layoff our world-class workforce and it's not laying people off
and i'm not a fan of attrition union members and because we manage both streets and transit is that we have the ability to put our thumb on the scale and allow drivers to subsidize riders. parking fees and fines already do this but a crisis like this is the right time to increase revenues from driving related sources. we should increase parking rater mats and moving driving infrastructure and parking and to give up their cars and switch to sustainability transportation. if we build the infrastructure, cars will fill it we will see more transit and bike ridership. congestion has a role and it gets back to us by 2023. a quarter billion pounds a year from the congestion charge and we must move it to implement
congestion pricing. the tools are costly, yes but they are necessary make sure we have them intect in t.a. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have 12 questions remaining. next rider. >> yes, roger, we can hear you. >> hi, this question is it directed for johnathan. johnathan i really like the way you present everything as crystal clear and lucid. i want you to know a couple weeks ago i made a public electric larration to volume tive and pay cut to pay reduction and johnathan, my question to you is this, for the next sfmta board meeting can you put together a budget that shows
how many city leaders make what i do and or above and how much -- where what that look like in terms of for the next 12 months we can ensure and essential services like the back force program don't git canceled so johnathan, are you able to put that budget together in terms of voluntarily and reduction for the people the city leaders that make what i make and above. can you put that together for the sfmta board meeting? >> i'm sure you know this, we're not allowed to do question and answers because of the public disclosure and all those rules. johnathan will get back to you on that. i know there are limitations. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please.
>> you have 13 questions remaining. >> thank you, chair, board and members. she and her. there's good work here. thank you for not raising the fears fo fares for the next two years we're getting it in writing. this promise you are making to the people in the bay area keep fares stable. i believe that things will change and transit is going to recover because people are seeing how expensive cars are and it's going to take some time. clipper start is going to be turned on on july 15th so there's opportunities that we can get to bring more customers into the system with reduced fares and get them clipper cards, which is very efficient,
cost efficient method of collecting fares so we need to promote programs such as that and allow our assumptions to include that. reduce fare customers are essential to the system and we have to remember the similarities in those groups to ensure that our fare schedule are equal, senior k, disabled ad lifeline are very dis similar. thank you for not reducing redu. reduced fares must mean reduced service. thank you for not increasing fares and keeping them stable. appreciate it. thank you. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> hell oh can you hear me.
it's how i wanted to point out something if figured out and several times throughout this presentation which is that mta is about to spend this one-time money and it's not sustainable long-term and more, so, i got distracted there. more revenue and new revenue sources are going to be needed so i know there's this minutes and i woulboard andit charges de fee proposal from back in 2014 and ready to be revised and does not require legislation on congestion pricing does. i would also like to urge you to charge more for parking and
charge drivers more. it's not equitable to raise fares on transit riders, which you are not doing, while not raising fares or charges of equivalent on drivers. thank you. >> thank you. our next speaker, please. >> you have 12 questions remaining. next speaker. >> unmute if you would like to speak. give us your name, please. >> madam mot rat moderator woulu move to the next speaker. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hello, this is hayden miller.
just wanted to say budget looks good. i am slightly disappointed to see that the free muni for all youth was cut. i'm also interested to hear why there was over $40 million allocated to yo purchasing 40-ft buses when seems like just like four or five years ago, we already got over 200 new 40-footer buses so, that does seem a little confusing and then also i look into others have said, raising parking and driving fees as well as cutting executive and salaries to help mta continue to provide great transit service. thank you. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, sheriff
borden. this is zack membership and cam train excited to weigh in on the emergency transit only lanes. i wanted to write a few comments on the budget. we really appreciate all the hard work staff has put into develop this budget and redoing it. again, this is a question trade off and values and we were start to go see the fare increase and obviously this has dramatically changed and the rider fees. we're also very for our youth programs and low income and marginalized youth from our cost of administering the program. we need to remove as many
scenarios as possible tone courage ridership, especially young youth. we also look forward to working sources for muni. as they mentioned, we need more additional and progressive local sources of funding as we are deal with this crisis. we went to advocate for funding and transit and at the local level. thank you. >> thank you. you have nine questions remaining. >> caller: hi, good evening, members of the board and urban habitat and we're also a member of the regional council and work had done on the budget and very
difficult conditions as we all know so we appreciate the work and the general responding to the crisis. i would echo the comment the sources of funding turning that mta has to burn through its one-time funding reserves and from here and potentially through shifting some of the state funding around highways and some of the longer term capital projects to get some more money back down to you all at the state and able to shift some of those funds within mta's budget and i think it also brings out the need to think about the future and while we're struggling in the present and thinking about a potential ballot measure down the line even if it's 2024 we'll dig out of this crisis and go beyond it so i think it's not too soon to think about that and finally i know every dollar counts and
cutting back for youth, i think at this time when the residents and the most reliable muni riders are the residents who not not leave the city there's long time people board and raised in san francisco and the folkser not going to do it 30 seconds and the changes and so i can hope we can blunt impact of those cuts on transit dependent communities and disabilities and take the account and think about dialing up some of the cause folks can afford more including looking at mta's own internal budget and salaries, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> good afternoon, this is barrie toronto again. i first want to thank from the bottom of my heart from the taxi
induce reand to cab drivers for this proposal and i hope you will prove today that the waving the taxi fees for the next retroactively fort last few months. considering the lack of income and also we don't want to lose cab drivers because if it's between paying $125 card fee and trying to find a different job or keeping themselves in the loop, so that is a be able to drive again when this will picks up and they feel their health isen johisnot jeopardized. the other couple of things, it would be great if the taxi services got the word out that you made this action today and to do the drug screening and renew their cards. i think the importance of having
parking control officers during the peak time hours but also in the evening and on the weekends, where the staffing is low at this point, because your revenue is coming more from doing better parking and traffic enforcement and that would generate income there. i've been saying it for years and you ought to look at more cars on the road and people not having easily finding parking that you step up this enforcement in order to keep traffic flowing and buses flowing especially. the legal use of the transit lanes and you are going to need more personnel for that and i think you will get your investments back many fold times and to help fund the bus lines. thank you, very much. >> thank you. #.
>> you have seven questions remaining. >> thank you for listening to the ground swell of support to reinstate back first wellness in the divisions, you've heard from bus operators, mechanics and many other frontline workers all asking for back first wellness services. roger, president of the local 258 calls this a health and safety issue. that's true. you received e-mails, phone calls and a petition from divisions with hundreds of signatures. signatures. they have all told personal stories. workers changed their lives with the guidance of that first wellness professional. you've heard from ucf doctors who support back first and how back first wellness services are delivered. meeting workers where they are in their divisions. they are medical experts in diabetes and chronic disease, all very real concerns here. you've heard from a lot of
people. and the message is the same. this is not the time to cancel this wellness program for bus operators. modify it, sure. reduce cost and scope, yes. but don't cancel the wellness program that has served sfmta workers for 19 years. it's needed now more than ever. we know now that workers and especially people of color, are most at risk in covid-19 if they have high bmi, diabetes or high blood pressure. these issues are common and they address these health conditions everyday. by providing easy access and important health information. it's addressing the inequities in healthcare that black and brown work verse faced for generations, it's important our national conversation about race moves from talk into action. supporting back first in the division is a very real way to do that. since the sfmta is into creating
greater equity. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is sam deutsche calling on the budget issues. i just want to echo what other people have been saying about finding new and creative ways to raise revenue from automobile owners in san francisco and i used to be a car owner myself and i was honestly stunned at how cheap parking permits were and how cheap meeters were in some areas and some areas didn't have any meeters and furthermore, just the general idea of a congestion charge especially in this soma or financial district areas. or other creative ways to raise revenue. i think all good ideas and given this unique crisis, nothing should be off the table and
finding ways ways to shift the chair and transit especially in the broader context of you current climate emergency. >> you have six questions remaining. >> this is martin calling from d5. i want to thank the sfmta board for taking the time to look through the budget and make sure we don't do really massive service cuts or massive -- i'm calling in regards to congestion pricing. i believe that s from 2023 on wards and we need to the worse
ever and so question, just finish up my public comment. the issues and we know increased revenue for transit and for transit reliant folks that don't have cars like myself and also it's safer streets for people in the century center so consider implementing condition pricing to close the budget gap in 2023 and sorry for reply sloppily public comment. >> thank you for commenting. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: my name is herbert winier and i have some questions 20 add the reason why there's less usage of public transit
transportation is a service and i believe it will be even worse reducing it. the friend crowding on the buses is in violation and the saturday system of transportation should be one thing i'm wondering about also is there are projects that are being contemplated and that's an overhead expense. this is a transit first city. expenses like fold outs, modifications should be kept on hold and perhaps a little and
this is a transit first city. also another source of revenue is for their license and should be paying for parking and they are not a privilege group they should not be. they and they have a responsibility to this city and especially in a pandemic. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> hi, i'm the party patrol officer chapter president.
and as far as parking and traffic in order for us to go ahead and make sure that we fulfill those obligations in the budget we need the support when it comes to our enforcement in the form of safe spaces, safe facilities and being proactive and efforts to keep these deals safe which we have the calling on four years now and the exhortation of moving a the they traffic leads to anxiety and we want to go ahead and give them the means to be trained and the areas of the dealing with those type of dealings and also, like said, continue with a call for safer working conditions as far as our facility, our driving vehicles and just doing the job so i hope these things are considered in an effort for what is support that is needed and to build that objective thaw guys
have in your budget. thank you for hearing me and have a good day. >> you have four questions remaining. >> thank you. sew fee alvarez and i wanted to thank johnathan for a clear budget description. i really appreciate that. and because we're in the budget crisis, i urge the sfmta board and districted to address the systematic racism that has been a hiss tickal issu historical i, i would like to understand the operators part in control operators and officers custodians, car cleaners and front line service staff are largely composed of people of color. people of color suffer the underlying health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity which make them more prone to catching the virus.
now the virus is another up swing and along with the stressful and dangerous work conditions, we need that more than ever. to survive this pandemic. and support from the tine i have i can and medical community proving their wellness is invaluable and effective and to take a knee for george floyd is a great symbolic action which is greatly appreciated by everyone. however, the proof of san francisco mta board of districtors and director tom lynn, commitment to stop the systemic racism of denying much needed wellness and health education to our sfmta employees is to adequately budget the bachelor program without service cuts or layoffs. stop the systemic racism, restore the back first program
and without any type of layoff. thank you for your consideration. cutting management salaries would be a good start. thank you. >> thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> next speaker, go ahead. >> my, m hi, my name is robert i live in district five. i wanted to stress my support for closed streets and taking cars off the road and i think that the parking situation and the city benefits drivers so i'm happy that sunday metering is going to be part of the budget, unfortunately under the
circumstances, i support that we value sparking space because it's so rare by pricing it at a level that the market will actually respond to and increase of the prices of parking or using cars in san francisco where space is so limited. thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> this is michael leary director of the back first wellness program. as chair and board noted in celebration honoring the 2020 top 20 veteran muni operators was held this morning and it was inspired and organized by local 250 and director tumlin, and chair board and president who provided welcome and heartfelt
comments for these who contributed to the backbone for decades. it was a beautiful, beautiful event and acknowledgment. both the mta and the board have received letters of support from operators, mechanics, supervisors and distinguishes physicians who specialize in diabetes, hypertension and bmi. i'd like to point out that prior to the previous four rfps and contracts for the mta on site wellness program they undertook a review to evaluate the fiscal turn on investment each time the return on investment from the back first program was greater than 3-1. since this is an internal study utilizing data within the mta and i can't confirm it and that was held. but i can assure you that the
back roads program does improve the health and well-being of the muni worker. and finally, i do believe the director com pin just recognize and service and i hope we don't miss this opportunity and thank you. thank you. our next speaker, please. you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker, give us your name and we'll start your two minutes. >> this is glen a and customer service and i would like to urge you to concede to give back first and i want to say amen to the first speakers as it's very beneficial to every employees of sfmta through health and wellness. which offer awareness to what we
eat and how it can affect our body. i'm one of the proof of that. i used to weigh 200 pounds and now i'm down to 170 and being healthy, and being aware that supervisor is very important in our lives and the way we put food in our mouth and with this back first, they offer exercises of how we can do it in a correct way and also through yoga, zumba and also they offer also with different speakers doctors that have been coming to sfmta and with the knowledge on what we need to do in order to be healthy and be alert employees of sfmta and because of that, i
have not been calling in sick and i'm very healthy and ready to work and i would like to thank them for all the knowledge they have in part with me. thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon. my name is anthony baluster i am a 9160 transit operator and chairperson for transfer workers union local 258. i understand that the final proposed budget for fiscal years 2020-2021, 21-22 has been submitted. with that being said i and other hundreds of operators look forward to the back first program visiting our division. it educates us for a healthy lifestyle with exercise and diet, it also took a blood pressure, glucose, and
cholesterol levels. they need back first to stay fit in mind and body to do our jobs safely and i ask they give careful considerations in making room to keep back first going and especially for san francisco's hard-working muni operators. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> this is matt from people protected. like many of the other speakers today i'd like to push you to look for new sources of revenue for the department and the place to look for that is in car drivers. parking meeters are opposed to residents are the place where we can actually do this and the places of highest demand for car drivers right now and into the
future are parks. if i look at doll or as park by my house or golden gate park, it's flood on all sides by parking where people don't have to move their cars for seven days. as we remove cars from our parks and create more car-free spaces, we need to repurpose the space adjacent to the parks for car storage for visitors and making that parking accessible to people will allow people from all across the region to park near our parks and enjoy them. i would like to encourage you to pilot this on fulton and lincoln between tray der up there. and where we currently have the car-free section of golden gate or jfk drive and it will allow more people too access the park, thank you, very much. >> thank you, next speaker.
please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is january from back first. can you hear me? >> yes, we can, thank you. >> oh, good. i've been with back first position wellness coordinators. i was in the position handling the wellness for many, many of my friends. i was there for 14 years and before that i was in wellness director in the corporate world and then in the county. i thought i knew what was wellness director was all about. i had a office, a team and i had provided seminars and lunch and learn. boy, did i have a lot of learn. when i came to muni 14 years a. i didn't realize the friends i would make. i didn't realize the trust and the relationships that i was going to form. i was so lucky. i was in their homes and away
from their homes. i learned that they needed the immediately to make some health decisions and solutions and i also knew i had to schedule things on a regular basis because i saw them davely. it's so wonderful to hear from anthony so thank you for calling and having worked with all of them and including roberta boomer and they're all my friends and so i'm glad because some of them are reaching out to me virtually to say how successful they've been. i would like to say three things i've learned and it has to be one-on-one on the division because that's where they are. you can't be in an office and do it online. the professionals that are provided the services have to be passionate about exercise, nutrition, strength, bmi, blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol and it's easy when
you know someone and you are trying to help them solve their problems and we need to be proactive on the job stretch and nutrition as well as the division and speakers. thank you, i hope you will reinstate this program. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> you have ser open questions remaining. >> thank you, we'll close public comments and i'm going to turn it back over to directors who i'm sure have some questions. i do think i want to ask the directors and i know back first has come up a lot and this budget doesn't cut out back first but it's not included we still have an opportunity after voting on this budget to make a decision to that program, correct? >> that's right. there's nothing in this budget that comes straight out of our operating budget. it's clearly and i fully agree a very popular program one that is
loved by our workforce. it's one many painful cuts we have to make to our operating budget to deal with a 200 million-dollar structural deficit. we're cutting 30% of muni service hours and there are 40 bus lines. we have no path to restore service to in this budget absent, new, outside revenue sources. the cuts we're making are terribly painful and we're starting to think about -- so for example, if politics shift in november and the balance of power in the senate changes, there is the possibility of new money within this budget cycle and there is no possibility of new money coming from congestion pricing in this budget cycle so we're starting to think about our priorities would be if we do
better. this isn't an object ta miss tick budget and it drains our reserves. there is a likelihood we will not reach a 70% ridership level and in this case our choices back even more grim than presented to you here today. >> i'm going to let the director lead us off with questions and i'm sure we all have a lot of questions. >> thank you, madam chair. this budget has gone through some stormy weather even before it took effect. and they say that every storm cloud has a silver lining and for me at least, the fact is that if we hold the line on fares it means the clipper discount will live to fight another day. maybe it will live for two years to find another day.
if celebration of that, i have some brand merchandise i'm going to wear for the rest the item. i did some some questions for and you it probably would be easier we can ask a few. >> there we go. if you can start on slide 27. what struck me about this slide is that compared to our april budget, the general fund transfers, the operating grants and the parking fees all went up and that would suggest your
economic outlook brightened a bit and i wonder what caused it to brighten. >> that's a fantastic question. i'm going to turn off my camera so you can hear me. on april 21th, the controllers office and the mayor's budget office were still working off scenarios on what the general fund would look like. so we went on the 21st with their absolute worse scenario. which was the 347 because we didn't want to take a chance it would be lower than that after you approved the budget in april. think did did a revise of the where they landed and so had it been better so we're using what they put in the budget system and what their official revenue estimate was for us on operating grants, it's been fluctuating a lot. we went with a really bad
estimate of what we would get and we didn't have the governor's revise yet and that was a little bit of a right sizing when we got into a sense of what sta would look like and sta is the state transit assistance from the state. when we got a sense of that, it changed. also the cares act and the second two third traunch within the region has been going back and fourth as to how much that might have been as we got more information, we adjusted the amount so for those to amount those were the reasons for the change. >> let me move on to transit fares. could you go to slide 30? what struck me here on the transit fair island for fy22 you've got an estimate of almost
190 million and in fy19, pre covid, the number was 197 so you are in the second year of this budget, you are getting awfully close to a pre covid fare revenue number. again, i guess i would question whether we ought to be that optimistic. we should not be that optimistic. the 197 was actually less than budgeted so we have always done worse than a fare revenue and the past couple budget cycle. you are correct at that 188 is appoint of risk and this is one of those things we just don't know. it is less than what we thee reddick low shoultheetheoreticai am not super confident about the
188. it is not impossible that 188 is a theoretical situation that could occur depending on the recovery, if there's a vaccine at some point and those are all unknown factors that we did our best to assume. the 188 heads the service stable and it assumes changes in trips still and you are correct, that is definitely optimistic which is why we've left the 10% reserve unused. >> well, maybe just to explore this question a bit further. you if you can go to slide 44. that's the last one i wanted to look at. you are right, this is a awfully busy chart. i think in fact in your presentation, you characterized that black line as an optimistic line. and again, just so i understand this, the red bars at the bottom
that are flat are basically the 6' physical distance right. >> yeah, so based on and regard to that is what it would look like. the black line is above that and the challenge we share trying to get our head around when we can had a vaccine. until we do, crowds of being on transit people is an uphill battle this assumes that falls by the --
>> this is and what we're trying to do and best practices and we're relying on social distancing and every other realized that other techniques are for more effective atri ducing virus transmission and including masks and everything that we're already doing around cleaning. we're assuming that the 6' goal will be relaxed in the united states and global signs and we're also needing to point out and it is not -- we have no viable financial path forward. that is correct. >> muni has a diversified revenue base and your general fund contribution will be whatever it is and whatever the
economy permits. it won't be based upon how many passengers you have. that is partially true but i mentioned the four-legged stool. so these are great questions and they have come up in the past couple of weeks. the one the mta the transit agency and department of transportation so absolutely correct and we have parking and traffic revenue in a significant part of our general sunday set aside for the cost of transit service. muni runs in all forms of muni across the m.t.a. and it's 850 to $900 million. if we consider just the muni function of the mta but like other transit agencies the general fund is capped. there's a maximum we're going to get for the cost of transit and parking and traffic, yes, we are looking to increase revenues in this area but we are now enforcing on every day including sunday and there's not an eighth day of the week.
we have put the pedal to the medal on all the other revenue revenue so it's a preportion of the cost of each trip and at some point we do not collect enough to cover the cost of that have trip which is where jeff is saying it's not viable. >> i understand that and i think jeff is making a rationale argument. people will make a decision on riding muni that won't think rationally and they will be fairful and the question i'm raising is not that your line won't go up, will it we may not so awful these questions are by way of an introduction to a suggestion that i'd like to make
on how we go forward over the next year at least and i think your presentation that suggests some kind of quarterly briefing for the board on the budget and i frankly don't think that's frequently enough. i would like to suggest that we have a monthly report on budget versus actual expenditures and we track it that closely. what i would suggest we do in particular madam chair, i don't want to get too much in the weeds but just in terms of managing the information. if we can put that on our consent calender once a month, so at every other meeting, that way the public could track what we're seeing as well and then if any of us want to take it off consent and talk about tay little bit more, including the staff, we can do so and if we're not seeing a lot of change from the prior months, we just say ho-mum and it's there in writing
for us in the public. i just think given how unprecedented this situation is, and likely how volatile some of these revenue sources are going to be, as jeff mentioned, what if it's president biden and a democratic senate, that could be a nice outcome for transportation. that's my suggestion, madam chair is we find a way to keep tabs on this every month and track it as closely as we can. >> i'm glad to direct to do that. i am already demanding monthly updates on the status of expenditures as well as revenue. it's easy enough to provide that to all of you and it's in the interest of the agency to be very transparent with the public about the actual state of our budget and the requirement that which get revenue going off the
fiscal cliff. we are training our reserves and living on credit cards in order to be able to maintain some service to the public and to avoid la layoffs. i want a rapid recovery rather than going through the problems we have gone through in previous recessions where it took us a decade to recover because we lost too many score staff people and it took us years to bring back that intellectual. >> i love this analytics dashboard you put together and maybe we could have one that does the budget, right. translating with this -7° 1 of boardings means against our anticipate the numbers to be and that would be something simple as well and they can say oh, we're 92% down in our transit
revenue and that means we're far from making our targets and it's easier than when we start to have to make decisions about trade offs and if people want to talk about that in the budget. do you have anymore questions before i move on to the other directors? >> no, madam chair. thank you. director brinkman. >> thank you. thank you, director for starting us off on that and i am absolutely agree with you and i'm sure with johnathan as well that we're going to have to look at this monthly, monthly financial statements will make a lot of sense. it will change so quickly. we don't even know what it is going to look like next month to your point, if we have a second lockdown of any sort that will blow this all up and we'll have to rejig it. the monthly financial statements were a policy we had where we shared those with the fta and rating agencies so i would hate
us to get on the wrong side of that policy and what we've been doing. thank you, again, johnathan, leo and team for all this work and we know we're going to be super busy and we're going to be looking at this on an ongoing basis none of this can be considered set in stone at all. so us having partners around the world to look at about how you brick bring people safety back to transit, who is it that will set that distancing dictate for public trance? is it a state of california policy right now that we're making transit safe by using physical distance or is it a city policy and how do we go about countering that and allowing us to maybe increase the capacity on our buses and trains when we get them back?
>> everything we're doing is subject to approval of san francisco public-health. they work closely with the national centers for disease control in washington. the american public transit association has been partnering with the centers for disease control to try to get more useful and more up-to-date based upon the science, national guidance for public transit and learning from the great success in the east asian cities. compared to the east asian democracy where of course wearing a mask is just a decent human thing to do in order to protect the health of other people, here in the united states, wearing a mask is somehow questioning my fragile
masculinity. so we have a set of issues not faced by southern european countries where public mistrust of government is arguably equally high we have a unique lack of productive leadership so we're a risk in this budget is that the guidance from the centers for disease control and the san francisco department of public-health will say the european data showing wearing masks and not talking loudly and protect the operators and the whole long list of things all of which the sft and that european experience is not and that creates a problem for us and we
don't have a means of enforcing those rules. we're not going to bring in the san francisco police department to drag passengers off of muni buses and drag essential workers off of money muni buses. it's a conundrum and something we've having regular talks about with the san francisco public-health. >> i just want to -- johnathan and leo, thank you for your team and also just call out the hard work that had been done in past years by past boards and past cfos by the board members that i served with so that we have this reason' day fund that we can look back on so remember the actions we take with future boards and cfos will hopefully look back and thank us for the hard decisions and the tough calls that we made. thank you again.
i won be able to do my job. it's raining and we're using our rabies day fund and i want to make sure that i leave it in better and that is a basic, fundamental response ability of public sector leaders. >> director eaken. >> thank you so much. i have many questions and i'll try to get through them. the first thing is just seeing the structural deficit of 96 million and fy23. johnathan, you spoke about, i just can't help but remember that back in our january workshop, i believe you or leo give an estimate that congestion prices would generate $100 million a year for the agency and that was like one scenario. there are many scenarios.
i would love staff to come to this board and have this conversation because your presentation underscores me we need to take seriously this idea of this new potential sustainable revenue source and just as you mentioned. we will be in need of and we're talking about 2023 so we have some time to your point, but it does seem that this shifts from an idea that beef known for a long time as a best practice in planning to a financial imperative to seriously explore. so i'd like this board to continue to have conversations about making that less of an idea and potential low more of a reality and i want to observe the 20 million-dollar cut is something we're feeling and many are delighted to see fares not
rising and the problem with this proposal is people could easily afford to pay the increases if fares we were talking about that around able to do so and we haven't made transit affordable for those who can't pay and in this city, they are many people who can afford to pay for those fare increases and now we're not seeing that revenue. that's a really missed opportunity that is really unfort a lot and we have to think about how we find more cushions to back fill that 20 million. it's just another problem that we have that is really unfortunate. i'm also said to see the free muni for youths which was not a subjects of your presentation.
i felt very proud of the staff and the board for the decisions to do what we all know is the right thing to make muni free for youths and i didn't think it would be one or two million dollars and i know we're taking cuts but i want to emphasize a decision so in line with our values and because so many of our youth took the time to send us e-mails, i would love to ask the question about the fare enforcement question and how much we're spending on enforcing the fears of those youth that are required to pay as opposed to making muni free for youth and then alleviating ourselves with a need to pay for that fare enforcement. >> go ahead. >> before johnathan answers the question, i just want to make it clear to the public because i think there was some misunderstanding among our callers that muni continues to
provide free service to all low and moderate income youth in san francisco. this is been a longstanding program which we will continue. what we're not able inform afford to do is extend that program to upper income youth. something that we did want to do but in light of the cut of service that we're needing to do and the cutting of very valuable programs, we felt like there is no way that we can do this and we're already taking far too much risk and relying on optimistic assumptions about fare revenue in order to avoid far more catastrophic cuts. with that. >> i want today do that reminder that free muni for moderate and low and moderate income youth will be maintained and is assumed in the budget. you are correct that the cost of
upper income youth that do not qualify for the free muni program is about $2 million in fare revenue and we couldn't afford to lose because we balanced it. the cost is between six and a half to $7 million a year between the staff, equipment, hours and administration of the over all program. >> do we have a sense of how much we would have saved by doing fare enforcement with you? >> as different question and we were planning it to discuss fare
evasion. like our current rates and how it's changed since our last major report in 2013. there was a plan to talk about that and at the beginning of the new year we're just evaluating the data now. the data will be completely different situation and that was our initial plan and we'll have to re-evaluate it now. >> w. well, i would say in this time, as you mentioned, of heartbreaking cuts across the board, i certainly would be in favor of considering whether we need to spend that money on fare enforcement or if that's something that gets suspended during this time i think we'll
have a hard enough time with transit ridership and is it time to crack-down on people who can't afford to pay? >> this is a great challenge in irony. running a transit agency that has still very depend around on user fares. we don't do fare enforcement in order to make money off of citations it's something i want to avoid. the only reason we do fare enforcement is to get not 100% but an optimal level of fare compliance so everyone who is paying their fare feels like they're treated fairly and also one of the reasons why we provide such deep and it could save us a couple million dollars and it would cost us fare more and these programs have to go to
death. we need some level of fare enforcement and and in order to not further gut our service. >> the last is global and built off director heminger's comments. i think it's just quite understandable that people are going to be concerned and in riding transit because they've been socialized so well over the last few months and conversely, so that as you mentioned is going to be challenging and i just think conversely the trend is going the opposite direction is that many people are getting off the bicycle in their base basement and enjoying riding for
the first time. i think there's a larger narrative here which unfortunately and the trend of biking and the trends of walking and driving and biking and i just think that this could be a real opportunity as we face these very, very challenging financial waters because there's no on operating costs and we look at these cuts of generally supportive of keeping the positions open and i think it's a strategy that make sense but i really want to make sure that if we're going to look at biking as a way to possibly take some of the support from people who are not comfortable making transit trips, are we staffing to build out that safe biking and walking network that i think we need. just a walking data that suggests more people are
comfortable returning to that than transit. i didn't see biking data but as we keep those positions open, we're doing that very strategically with an it shows the experiencing and making all historic records in terms of bike ridership and we're seeing similar patterns in our broken fragmented bike network and we do believe there's the opportunity for a significant shift in san francisco from other modes to walking to biking to skate boarding and scooterring. while staff will not be able to keep up the base they've been working over the last three months, the roll out of what we've done with shared spaces in
other programs shows what government is capable of doing and if we're clearing about our values and we continue measuring results engaging with the public after the initial pilot is put in in order to make adjustments, make changes, cancel programs, shift them around, this is what if is possible if we're clearing what we're going to do and engage through doing. >> great. anymore questions? >> even heading into this pandemic, the assistant streets division has significant amount of unfilled staff positions and that were constraining their ability to deliver on our version zero objective and so, that is the reason for the question or are we going to continue to receive feedback that we just don't have the staff to do it and are we
strategically keeping positions open in line with those goals. >> every division in the agency is going to strengthen through attrition. that's why the muni service cuts are so steep. it will con train the ssd to deliver the great street projects that san france enjoying. we are cutting everywhere. >> dr. heminger. >> yes, sorry, madam chair. maybe this is a second round here. i wanted to get back to the buses and trains. and this question of people's perception of safety. i've heard a number of different ideas discussed and jeff, i just wanted to ask you maybe if you could put them together in a package at least in terms of what the status is today. one is the idea of temperature checks before people get on
vehicles and a second is handing out masks. a third is some kind of visible cleaning campaign, you know, we might generate fare revenue if people just saw cleaners get on the buses as well as fare inspectors. and then some kind of an -- i thought there was some kind of regional public information campaign underway or plan that will tell people and we are vemming not only sort of clarity about what all of the bay area transit operators are doing in order to keep their workforce and passengers safe but also put that out there to the public because we're doing a lot and we're gutting our marketing budgets and we have no budget to
tell our story so hopefully they will help since every operator is facing the same conundrum. on cleaning we need to follow two pats simultaneously. one is rooted in science. it's continually changing and it's about reducing the actual rate of transmission of the virus. and there is another pat of increasing trust. we are literally looking at cleaning products that smell like bleach. even though they are better for our chemical sensitive riders, having our buses smell lick cleaning products is pure theater but may actually be
necessary. which know is the virus is transmitted by people who are a systematic. that's why face covering are essential. my mask protects me from infecting you. i don't have a severe. what they found in is the public temperature check acted as a kind of public theater that encouraged people to reminded them we're a new to this single state of emergency and reminded people of the simple measures like wearing a mask and washing your hands so it we have to
weigh efficacy in terms of public theater and in terms of costs. there's a lot to do. and, you know, another thing getting in the way is so much of the talent of this agencies are working 80-hour weeks answering those questions and trying things out in the field every single day. >> just a fie things. the attitude issue is going to obviously be a big one. i think in general we're going to need the city to step up and the region to educate people. i hear this with restaurants who have behavior that people show up to dine being not social distancing and not wearing masks
and in that situation, because people when they sit at a table take off their mask, masked steph maps are unmasked to wait on them and so it's like we have a lot of work to do and educating people that they do think it's a problem but they're worried about muni buses. there's a massive education issue around attitudes and i think i am fearful the worse is ahead of us with the rising rates of infections and the concerns that are rising from them. and we would probably intuesday congestion pricing so the numbers we talked about are not achievable and the near future. i did have another question about the developer fees. the reason we could have a greater increase is because of
deferred fees because it went to 26 million. are we sure we have enough in the bank of deferred fees we would reach something close to 20 million? >> so, there are two fees there. the old transit impact and where we did have a fund balance that we use for one-time or capital. we will use it for one-time procurement in the budget and not salaries and and there was a period, i want to say it was like 2009-2010 where the decision was to defer your fee payment from typically when come in and pay when you get a building permit so when you got your certificate of occupancy because people had a fee deferral for three to four years
as they were building their towers and only at the pound where they were making profit and they were selling the condos and renting the apartments so we've had a large uptick due to catching up on the prior year and all the development going on in the city. it's unsustainable which is why we recommended no more than 10 million for operating one-time costs and we have enough in the bank now to feel comfortable. people want to do small projects for that regular stream of revenue. we have enough carbon hand to cover those amounts but i say again and i scream it's a one-time source and we'll never have that level of resource again in the objective is to create stability service so people feel comfortable coming back and we have the service so there's an economic recovery in the city, so we are using the
credit card hoping our salaries will go up to pay the bill later. >> i know people brought up salary and salary budget cuts. they are discovered by union and city wide union and so i guess what is the number one dealing with that issue of major management across the board which which was anyone making over i'm assuming some 75 or $100,000 a year. i don't know. what is the process for the city taking budget cuts at that big macro level and for us individually it's a conversation with individual unionses and when does that cycle come up or opportunity or not? >> we're coordinating closely with the department of human resources city wide on those
questions. sfmta we had the steepest, fastest cuts to our revenue sources because we get money on a daily and weekly basis. the city is still getting data on the longer term impacts, for example, to self-tax hotel tax and other quarterly and semi annual taxes. the over all city budget is needing to ask itself also some very painful questions and we'll be coordinating with them to coordinate with labor about all city departments make it through the financial crisis and it's worse than any financial crisis the city has experienced since the great depression. >> even if all the city officials took a cut that wouldn't necessarily mean that money came to mta, correct?
>> it would be because of the way the budget is done but not all of it. >> it's something to note. going forward, i love the analytics dashboard you've done. if we can also do something similar of like projected budget goal and where we are so the public can real time and i also do think that we should launch workshops where we provide trade offs. this amount and serious things and helping people do some surveying and getting out to the to understand them make the trade off and we need these conversations with the board of supervisors about the changes to specific districts and what we can take from this period is take the things that happen successful and the sim betterness we've been able to
show to make things happen quickly and some programs whether it's showed streets or shared spaces and how we can marry the wonderful thanks that came out of those processes with helping us a chief on the bun et side and i don't know if there's revenue or other opportunities there but we have to figure out how we keep the public engage from here is the question from making process and these are two programs that are similar and serve the same purpose. not that you are putting a bicycle program against a pedestrian program. i don't think that's what we want to do and what we want to be doing is these are true pedestrian safety over arching projects. not in a particular neighborhood, right. but in theme if we have to cut, which is more important, right? signalization or marking in the sidewalks, it's not a good example but it's what i mean. we need to really give people
honest, in sight and especially our elected leaders because what we need them to do when we defer the fare increase, was that the board of supervisors would help us come up with another revenue stream and having the public fully engage in the process and problem and the des decision-making us because anything we decide will have to be voted on by the public and the public has to understand they're part of the process of getting through this crisis to get to the other side so i do think having workshops, even early, starting to figure out the priorities there are and working with neighborhoods to think about those things. now is the time when people are online and paying attention to zoom meetings and all that staff they're not as much fun as the in-person things but for sure people are doing those. even if we did mta happy hours
where people came around the topic, being creative doesn't have to be super formal but we can figure out ways to be more engaging with the public and i think it will be very helpful. it's incredible and all the deep dive and if we can continue to and keep the trends and data like you did with the various study you drafted we could be in a good position moving forward doing that there's no good position in the current state. so with that, do i have a motion from board moms. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favor, secretary boomer, roll call. >> clerk: [roll call]
>> clerk: 4-0 the budget passes. moving on, madam chair. item 10 amend add of section to designate temporary transit only areas at laguna honda boulevard, clarrenden, for tol portola, min street, seventh street, masonic street, woodside avenue, bossworth and presidio avenue and add a section to temporarily authorize the city traffic engineer to approve temporary transit only lanes and tow away lanes and improving temporary parking and traffic modifications to put into effect the temporary transit-only lanes. >> great. so with that, we're expecting sean kennedy and michael roads s so please, take it away.
>> excellent. thank you, very much. good afternoon. my name is sean kennedy and i'm the transit planning manager here at mta. and my group does two things. day-to-day service planning of the system as well as planning and implementing the muni forward program including these temporary transit lanes we are going to be talking about today. obviously the city is facing some economic and mobility crisis. you know, the positive things about that, you know, we are lucky to have tools in our toolkit to mitigate the issues this crisis is raising and obviously over the last five years, staff has worked together with this board as well as board of supervisors and other stakeholders in the city to implement almost 70 miles of transit improvements and even changed a number of our lines
where re adjusted where service is going to make it more efficient and these interventions have really been successful and we've proven they're successful and wove grown ridership by 10% on a number of lines and so, now we really need to apply these lessons that we've learned over the last five years quickly and earnestly. as you know, for the city to recover, transit has to thrive, not just be a part of the mix. it really is a huge bit of the answer to the larger problem. and so, you know, my group is taking on two different approaches to make that happen. one, and that is director tumlin has talked about several times. -- [please stand by]
so there is a deep and urgent responsibility to direct our limited resources to protecting public health and establishing the basis of a strong economy. if we don't get congestion under control, many people who have to drive for work or other appointments will no longer be able to do so without getting stuck in endless traffic jams
and transit riders could face much longer delays before covid, even. we have to act fast and make sure the congestion doesn't drive our recovery to a halt. as sean mentioned on top of congestion in the coming year, transit in san francisco faces two major challenges to providing the capacity we need for economic equity and for public health. first of all, our budget can only carry a third right now as we talked about the -- and second we face a major reduction in service as we have been speaking about earlier in the meeting due to the impacts of covid-19 on our budgets and workforce. next slide, please. our bus capacity is now reduced by about two thirds, as i mentioned, due to distancing requirements. normally a bus can carry 60 people, but we now have 20
people viewed as crowded. we are carrying 30 people right now compared to about 100 before. this means it takes about three buses to move the same number of people as one bus did back in january, but we obviously have fewer operators than we did before, so our capacity, in effect, is just limited. once ridership does start to return, we think the loss in capacity is going to be equivalent to, you know, two out of three riders not being able to complete their trip because they are getting passed up. we will see real constraints on how many people can get on board. to put it another way, these limitations would basically impact many more people than if the bay bridge and the golden gate bridge shut down during rush hour. it's a huge issue to have reduced capacity. on top of reduced capacity, we protect service in 2021 -- project service in 2021 is going ab about 70% of what was scheduled in january 2020 due to
our budget impact. our service delivery will be reduced by budget measures that we talked about earlier, as well as cleaning requirements and higher share of operators on leave and other impacts that will bring us down to about 70% of what we were before. congestion has actually been lighter than usual since shelter in place went into effect, and the lines are seeing about a 15% reduction in travel times. but that's not going to last. as we've seen, congestion is returning slowly and steadily. in fact, more than slowly. it's coming back much faster than transit ridership, and if we don't do anything, we expect we'll see an additional 10% reduction in transit service providing as a result of increased congestion. the buses we have out there are going to be stuck and not provide as much frequency as they did before. next slide, please. we also know that people who are riding -- are a lot more likely to be essential workers and less likely to have any other travel
choices. in doesn't mean that their trips should bear any greater health risk to those of someone able to drive, walk or bike. like many other cities, our current ridership is much more likely to be black, indigenous, people of color and individuals of lower income, and those without housing than the population as a whole. we're conducting a survey of our riders right now to better understand their demographics and their unique needs that transit is serving in this time, but we know that covid-19 has exacerbated existing racial and economic disparities and social distancing right now is a privilege that's not available to everybody. now is the time we think if ever to make equity the center of our recovery efforts. and from our bus operators to grocery store and health care providers, we're fully committed to prioritizing the health and transport of the essential workers who keep this city going. we also know that doing so is essential to reducing the transmission of covid-19 in the community, for public health reasons and for equity, this is -- something has to be done
to address this. next slide, please. this map shows the transit travel plans during shelter in place on some of our busiest lines. while the system-wide average i mentioned was a 15% savings during the peak, some areas saw up to 50% travel time savings in peak hours. as you can see here. so the vast majority of the time savings is due to reduced congestion with only about 5% of it coming from reduced boarding time. it's not less people boarding the traffic. it's less traffic the buses are stuck in. we're investing this time savings in more frequent service with the same number of buses, which is something we're already doing right now, which we know reduces crowding and supports social distancing and both the safety and comfort of people on board right now. one kind of remarkable thing we saw when we looked at travel times across the system during shelter in place is where we've already implemented muni four projects, we generally saw little travel time savings because we were protecting our buses from traffic. as sean mentioned, there are
basically proven measures to protect us from congestion and keep transit moving. next slide, please. so to ensure congestion does not crush people's ability to engage in social and economic activity and create more crowded conditions on muni, we're proposing a program of emergency transit lanes. these lanes will be used as soon as possible using reverse l material. first responders will also be able to use this network of lanes to respond to health emergencies faster. with the city progressing through the next levels of reopening in the coming weeks and months, whatever that timeline is, we need to have the first set of transit lanes in quickly, likely within the next six to eight weeks, to get ahead of increased congestion on some of these early corridors. under normal conditions these projects would go through much more extensive outreach but these are not normal conditions. we are proposing more quickly to
get the benefits ond ground before we start seeing buses have congestion again. the lanes are temporary, and without further board action, they will automatically -- within 120 days after the city-wide emergency order ends. so they go away if they don't have further approval. next slide, please. the program is meant to ensure that people who have the fewest travel choices, especially lower-income people of color are not stuck on slow crowded buses. it's also about reducing the spread of the virus as the city reopens so that public health impacts, and finally it's about ensuring our city's economic recovery can continue without getting stuck in catastrophic congestion that will undercut our efforts to come back. next slide, please. so this map shows the locations of the first batch of transit lanes which we're seeking approval for from the board today. these lanes would be installed as quickly as possible. they were chosen based on their travel time savings during shelter in place which tells us that normally we're getting
stuck in congestion on these lines, for their equity benefits in terms of the whole line, and from the board of supervisors, the sort of ease of implementation and how quickly we can do it, their proximity to hospitals in some cases, transit service levels that we're going to be providing on these corridors, and other complementary benefits such as enhanced safety in some cases where we'll have a shared bus bike lane. all of these lanes that are benefiting from the first batch of corridors or muni service equity strategy neighborhoods and everyone on the line will benefit from the travel time improvements. it will support increased frequency on the entire line. you won't be stuck in congestion in that segment. and as of august, each of these lines will -- my understanding is will have more frequent service than ever just to keep up with demand given the reduced capacity of buses right now. so a line like the 14 mission, we are running more frequent buses on it than ever in the past just to keep up, even though we don't have as many riders with that social distancing requirement we need
to be running more buses than ever before. next slide, please. so the first project in more detail is mission street south of market, which is shown on the map here. this corridor was chosen because of the 14 and the 14r. these lines also serve multiple equity strategy neighborhoods including the mission and others, and the 14r's ridership is 82% minority and 62% low-income. that's one of the highest rates in our bus network. we're running more service on mission, as i mentioned, than ever, but the buses are still not meeting demand because of the need for physical distancing. so there's a really urgent need to do something here to at least preserve the level of time savings we are getting. the -- demonstrating the need that we have here to protect buses from traffic congestion. this project would create 24/7 dedicated transit lanes and widen the existing travel lanes which are currently too narrow for our buses.
as a result of that, this is one of our highest collision corridors for transit collisions due to the sideswipes that occur there. currently mission has part-time restrictions on both sides of the streets, and to widen the lanes we would need to remove all of the parking on one side of the street, about 160 parking spaces in total. wherever possible the loading zones, commercial loading zones would be relocated nearby, and most of the parking removal would be primarily focused more on the western part of the road since there's actually generally already no parking on many of the blocks closer to downtown. on the opposite side of the street, so on the side where we're not removing parking, the current [indiscernible] regulations would actually be rescinded, which means that about 120 parking spaces would be newly available all day instead of having a tow away restriction. almost every space has a part-time towing restriction
right now to help with the transit lanes, but in the future, only one half of the block will have that, and the other half will actually have full-time parking available. so that actually means that there's going to be more parking and loading available than before in the peak hours, even though we're losing parking off-peak. it's going to be an increase in parking and loading during the peak areas. and the impact of this proposal is -- we can run the 14 and the 14r faster and more frequently than we could if we allow congestion to come back, which means less crowding on board and just, again, one of our most heavily used bus corridors, so reducing crowding is really an urgent need. next slide, please. the next project is along the 43 masonic and the 44 o'shaughnessy. laguna honda, woodside and bosworth. we have seen up to a 31% time savings in these corridors. we can't really do priority on the entire route of the 43 or
the 44 because of the limited street geometry and some of the segments, but these segments have the most impact of the entire line. it's bang for the buck of improving the travel time and capacity on these higher lines. they are also both equity strategy lines, and compare to covid-19, ridership on the 43 was 56% minority and 44% low-income, and similar on the 44. the proposal would take the existing curbside travel lane on each of these streets and convert it to bus, taxi and right turn only. bikes would be allowed on three other streets, already bike routes, so we want that lane to be available to bikes still. and no parking removal would be required on any of these corridors. left turns would be restricted in some places, but we're actually -- we're actually looking at making those potentially 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. instead of full time if possible
to minimize impacts to local residents, maybe get to their garage or parking near their house. and i also want to note here that based on feedback from residents we're actually -- staff is requesting to withdraw one of the restrictions. that's a low-turn volume street. it's just kind of a cul-de-sac. the turn volumes are very low. we don't think the left turn there will pose major problems, so we're proposing to implement it without that, see how it's going and keep monitoring it. but that is different than what was in the legislation today. the end result in this corridor is increased frequency and reduced crowding on these critical lines and serve multi-equity strategy neighborhoods, including the western edition, the excelsior and the bay view. next slide, please. so the final of the original data for the first set of corridors we're talking about today is 7 and 8 street and --
we're seeing up to a 35% travel savings on these corridors right now. again, this is an equity strategy line as well, and this section is a key equity strategy neighborhood with a very high share of transit-dependent people who rely on muni to make essential trips. it's serving the tenderloin and the bay view as well. so prior to covid-19, the ridership was 57% minority and 44% low-income, also one of the higher rates in the system. the proposal here is to convert the curbside lane on the right to bus and taxi only with returns allowed. essentially from market to townsend. improved travel time along the slowest sections of the route which will help make crowding and reduce riders' exposure to covid-19. one note i'll make about all three of these proposals is that
the exact extent of where the transit lanes will be is still somewhat in development. we have to look at things like the transition from one lane to two and where exactly these pick up. some of these may not be every single foot of the corridor, but the snaps you will see here show the general extent of them. next slide, please. you'll notice that the first set of projects are generally either in very dense neighborhoods, like thelma, where most people get around without a car. or they are in neighborhoods that are less dense, less central, but where there's not a high concentration of lower-income people. the goal is to provide benefits to historically marginalized people, muni riders who are coming from equity strategy neighborhoods, for instance, while assuring that we're not unduly impacted vulnerable populations that need to drive because they are not well served by transit, walking and biking lanes. very thoughtful about what neighborhoods we start in. as we learn more from the first
set of projects, we'll be reaching out to communities one by one as we pursue additional corridors beyond what's presented today. we are asking for the sfmta board to delegate authority to the traffic engineer to approve additional corridors following a public hearing if they meet a very clearly defined set of criteria. so they have to have at least 12% time savings or more during the shelter in place, and we have to be planning to bring back muni service within 45 days and preserve at least one travel lane per direction and not be removing more than one travel lane per direction for that corridor to be a candidate. in addition to that, any of the muni metro rail corridors would also be potential candidates for this approval process where it would go to a public hearing and have the city traffic engineer. we need to move ahead of congestion, but we're also looking closely with communities to ensure the projects achieve
their goal of supporting equity, health and the city's economic recovery. i also want to note that this delegation of authority includes the [indiscernible] rail service changes that sean alluded to earlier, including transfer accessibility improvements at church and market and at west portal station. those improvements could go ahead after a public hearing and with approval by the city traffic engineer if the board approves the delegation of authority today. next slide, please. the timeline for implementation of the first steps of the project is fast. if approved today, we plan to start implementation as soon as the beginning of august, which is as soon as our crews that are available given that they are finishing up work on other projects on locations like field street, which was just transit lanes that were just approved at the last board meeting. and that will be complemented by simultaneous extensive evaluation and outreach that will start as soon as these projects are on the ground. where we're seeing strong benefits and have community
support, we may also support -- we may also pursue legislation of permanent transit lanes in the coming year, but that's really going to be a matter of going through a process of deeper community engagement and evaluation before we take that step. all of these temporary emergency transit lanes will automatically stop within 120 days after the emergency order ends, except for those that the board takes action to make permanent. so we expect a much more robust action before any of these -- any portion of any of these would be even presented to become permanent. next slide, please. as we think about outreach for this project, we've had to re-think our usual approach given all of the limitations that covid-19 imposes on our outage. we are facing new challenges to reach everyone and to bridget the digital divide as not everyone has access to a computer, smartphone, et cetera. so far we've informed communities via online forums and public notices at 73 intersections about this
meeting. emails to over 5200 recipients on our email list, people who are already signed up to learn about mta project updates, as well as reaching out to over 70 existing community and business groups. so we thought are either in the neighborhoods that are affected or have a general interest in these types of projects. we've also presented to the other board and met with each individual supervisor on the board of supervisors, multiple times, to discuss the proposed projects and their district. we are also working to ensure that outreach is deep and robust as the project moves ahead. next slide, please. going forward we're going to employ a suite of engagement options such as text message surveys, online meetings, website updates, potentially phone calls to people, other measures during our evaluation processes to ensure that particularly historically marginalized communities are prioritized and not overlooked in the decisionmaking space, but really that we reach everyone
once these things are -- once these initial projects are on the ground. as plans are implemented, we'll be actively soliciting feedback and input from members of the public once they have the chance to see the lanes for themselves and see what's working and what's not working as well. again, that's especially in communities of color and for low-income residents, but really for everyone. we're going to use this information to inform and really co-design the future iterations of project implementation. so as we think about what these projects look like in the future, whether it's near-term fixes or more permanent ideas, we plan to do that in close collaboration with community members. we have to move fast, but we are going to establish a strategy to rapidly mitigate any unintended impacts, especially to marginalized communities incurred through the implementation of this project. so if we see, you know, unexpected levels of traffic diversion happening to a side street or a street that's really backed up, we're going to be looking at ways to very quickly get in and make changes.
again, temporary lanes automatically sunset if they are not legislated, and they can even be removed or adjusted before the sunset date if needed. next slide, please. so the key aspect of the plan is the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the elements as plans are implemented really with an emphasis on the project goals, again, of equity, public health and economic recovery. community input will be an essential part of the evaluation process, as i've mentioned. we're looking to work with the community both to shape the design of the evaluation, but also to take community input as an input into the evaluation itself. in addition to community feedback, you know, other areas of the evaluation we're going to look at are going to really hit on the project goals. we will look at health and safety benefits, economic health of the corridors, look at neighborhood general impacts. look at transit performance, of course. traffic safety is something we will be monitoring, and really looking at impacts to other users. those are all things we want to be monitoring and kind of be
keeping a finger on the pulse of once these projects are implemented. public engagement will shape adjustment to these projects and help us determine if and what longer term improvements are pursued on these corridors. next slide, please. so to recap today's legislation would do the following. it would approve temporary emergency transit lanes on mission and thelma, masonic, shaughnessy, laguna honda, woodside and bosworth. it would also delegate authority to the city traffic engineer to approve temporary emergency transit lanes on additional corridors that meet a defined set of criteria after a public hearing. next slide, please. so today the -- in terms of the next steps today the mta board reviews this proposal and reviews it for an approval, and if approved, this program in july would -- you know, we'd
immediately begin developing the evaluation framework with the community for each of these initial projects bs and also continuing to inform neighborhoods that temporary transit lanes are coming to the neighborhood. we got started on that but we would shift to informing people about the changes in the corridors. and then in late summer, to probably august, and into fall, we will begin installing the first emergency temporary transit lanes. we will begin the evaluation process of the first set of lanes to go in right away and monitoring on a real-time basis how the travel time, other impacts are playing out. it will develop proposals for additional lanes that could be approved for the city traffic engineer after public hearing if the authority is delegated to do so. again we're moving as fast as we can to get ahead of congestion and ensure that we can provide a transit system that will support equity, public health and our city's economic recovery. thank you very much, directors. >> thank you.
are there any -- looks like there is a clarifying question. >> yes, thank you, chair borden. mr. rose, good presentation. thank you. i want to bring up the issue that was kind of one of the hot button issues the last time we approved some red transit lanes, and that is the question of shuttles in the transit lanes. at the time, the board was still supportive of shuttles using the red transit lane, but i know that some members of the board of supervisors and members of the public think that the shuttles don't belong in the red transit lanes. it looks like all of these lanes are being classified as transit and taxi or transit and taxi and bicycle. i'm supportive of the shuttles using these transit lanes because i think it increases the capacity of the lane. it was pointed out to me by a very smart engineer that it also helps with enforcement, keeping cars out of the transit lanes if they are seeing shuttles and buses in there so that the transit lanes look like the
transit lanes are more used. are we in the evaluation process going to have a component that shows the impact or lack of impact on shuttles using these transit lanes? and do we think that we're going to see more shuttles spring up in light of businesses trying to get their employees to work under the -- in the post-covid or covid world? and i guess this kind of just if you could speak about shuttles in the transit lanes and how we intend to kind of monitor these and what we think that scenario looks like. >> so let me speak to that. the issue is complex, so i will try to provide as brief a summary as we can. from a public policy perspective, we want to make sure that we're managing the streets of san francisco to move the greatest number of people and to prioritize both the
public as well as people who have the fewest mobility choices. so that means muni being the most efficient mode of transportation and also the mode of transportation that serves people with the least means and fewest choices. muni always comes first, and we want to make sure that nothing we do is impeding the [indiscernible] muni buses. but with leftover space, we then ask the question: what else can we do with that space that serves the public good? so on, for example, the masonic street corridor, a service that uses that street [indiscernible] frequently are the [indiscernible] so we have the -- you know, our bus frequency is not so much that sharing masonic would pose a problem, and that could create great benefit for many essential workers in san francisco.
we want to make sure that continues. there are also a number of shuttles, like the mission bay shuttles that we don't have any concern with. many of the concerns we have heard from the public are specifically about the privately operated publicly restricted shuttles that leave san francisco. what we're finding from all of those employers down in the south bay is these are the sorts of jobs that lend themselves to telecommuting. many of them have no immediate plans to fill their offices and that will dramatically cut off those shuttles leaving san francisco. the people who still need to travel are san francisco's essential workers, including the essential workers in businesses that are starting to reopen, and that includes a lot of shuttle riders. so i think this is something that we'll want to include in our evaluation and continue to
watch over time to make sure that we are always prioritizing the flow and reliability of publicly accessible, publicly regulated services, and this would include taxis as well. and you know, and having a hierarchy of use that serves the greatest number of people but mostly optimizes for the public good. >> thank you. that's excellent. thank you. >> great. are there any other clarifying questions? okay, director ekins. >> thanks for the presentation. i just wonder if you could go back to slide 13. you don't necessarily have to show it, but i think i was a little bit confused about the parking situation where we're both taking away parking on one side and making it permanent on the other side and putting in bus lanes on both -- in both directions. can you just walk through that one more time? >> yes.
it is a little confusing, but i think what we have today is there are already four lanes on mission street, two lanes in each direction. and there's a part-time transit only lane. so the sort of curbside lane is a transit-only lane during the peak hours, but it's so narrow that it doesn't really make sense for it to be a transit lane unless the parking is removed, so we actually have a tow away restriction during peak hours, so there's no parking just to make that travel lane wider. that's the current condition. if you drive or walk down mission street in rush hour, you'll see the parking is towed away, transit is in the curb lane. it's really wide dedicated lane, and most places -- many of the blocks the parking is removed on both sides at that time. what we're proposing is that instead of sort of having this part-time thing that then reverts to having four very narrow lanes that buses have to straddle, we're instead proposing to have just one
parking lane that's always there on one side of the street and then get rid of the other parking lane and kind of shift the travel lanes so that you have four travel lanes that are always there, that are always wide enough and that the buses can always pass other vehicles and have a 24/7 dedicated lane. so what it looks like is it's always having one lane of parking and then always having four travel lanes, two of which are dedicated to transit, instead of sort of like the two part-time tow away lanes on both sides where we see a pretty high rate of people -- we know that right now it's an issue that people try to park in those lanes and there's no loading available on mission, so this option gives us at least a way to provide dedicated loading that is gonna be there on one side of the street all times of day. >> and so the loading on the other side of the street? what happened there? >> so part of the time we know that already