Up. And muni metro in areas just where ridership is tracked was down. Goal 3 was to improve the environment and quality of life in San Francisco. Here we can see that the overall daily ridership for the system was down. However, cost per revenue hour was also down. Which is a good thing. However, i want to point out that a lot of times what that means, when that goes down, is that usually a decrease in service when ridership is low will gilaurentiu givelichiagive. Last performance metric is to create sorry not metric, the goal is to create a workplace that delivers outstanding service. And Employee Satisfaction again is on a scale of 1 to 5. It is still better than the neutral 2. 5, but did see a dip in fiscal year 2018. Absences were also up slightly in fiscal year 18 among operators. Okay. So we do verify that the accuracy of Data Collection and reporting was good. I said that wrong. Muni continues to make improvement in the processes that will help improve operational efficiencies and help the public see what is going on behind the curtain. Our recommendations are that mid cycle methodology changes should aim for clarity. We still want to be able to tell the story, even when things are or when systems are being upgraded. Over the last 4 to 5 years, a lot of systems have been put in place that are really great, but it will look lake blips in the screen for presentations like that, but theyre all for good reasons and should continue to give us meaningful information in the future. So we want to make sure as the upgrades happen, we can continue to paint the picture that we are doing this, not just for data sake, but for reasons that will help the agency. Second, we want to formalize make sure that Standard Operating Procedures as new technologies come online have Data Governance policies surrounding them. I think a lot of that is already taking place. We want to memorialize that is really good standard business operating procedure. And thirdly, to expand to more detailed reporting for several metrics. There is a lot of metrics that the sfmta already uses for planning purposes. And so much of this work is automated in the way it never was before. So now it is not a huge labor effort to go ahead and just publish the metrics that are already being used. And then lastly, we recommend adopting a new metric to track preventative maintenance. The percentage of ontime completion for p. M. S, we call them, is a pretty standard industry metric that could help the sfmta pinpoint where Additional Resources could be very useful. Okay, so with that, i thank you for your time. It has been really great working with a team that cares so much about good data, useful data and are very committed to transparent governance. Im going to turn it back over to the team to follow up with comments on recommendations and then well be available for questions. Thank you. Good afternoon. Transit director. I want to acknowledge this covers through 2018, but most of these trends should not come as a surprise to the board because weve been talking about them on a monthly basis. Some of the trends do capture where we have known challenges, particularly Service Delivery. I think is one. As well as the ontime performance, the nonrapid routes which is so closely linked to Service Delivery and our operator shortage. There is also some trends that at the macro level may show flat or a decline, but when we get into the nuance, i think there are positive trends. For example, what we talked about at the last performance update with the ridership, we know that where weve made concerted efforts to enhance the transit experience, whether thats through more Rapid Service or more protection from traffic, were seeing double digit increases through ridership. We were at the beginning of the l. R. V. Before rollout during this reporting period, but we know now were seeing the l. R. V. 4s at 10,000 miles between breakdowns. As they continue to improve and also make up a larger percentage of our fleet, i see that really trending in a positive direction. Then i appreciate in the report, some of the positive trends. I do want to take an opportunity to celebrate those, because they really are the hard work of the staff that is supporting jeff and tom and i to deliver this work. In particular, the collision reductions, we have, in transit, been in a Strong Partnership with the Safety Division include the collision rate. And its taking a really pragmatic approach, starting with things most in our control. Like hitting fixed objects. Collisions in the yard. And then moving to some of the harder things, like sideswipes. So im really optimistic. We are, on the transit side, living the vision zero mandate today. And we have not had a fatality and i hope to continue that positive trend. I also include that the report is showing increased response to customer complaints. Its another place where the policy Advisory Group has been tracking our Response Rate to complaints. Because its one of our important metrics and were seeing improvements. Then this report just shows the beginning of what i think is an amazing trend in terms of our bus reliability. I think at this point in 2018, we were at about 7,000 miles between breakdowns. Now were in excess of 10,000. And thats really through the leadership of this board as well as the partnership between Bus Maintenance and fleet engineering and our Quality Assurance group to really deliver a highquality program. It shouldnt come as a surprise to you, but we are an agency that really uses data for decisionmaking and so its very heartening to have the opportunity for an outside group to come in and really validate our processes and validate our procedures. For the most part, the recommendations did seem very reasonable to us. And we welcomed that feedback. We did, as she talked about, change to 15 scale for percent satisfied and very satisfied and well take that feedback that we want to be as transparent as possible when we make these changes. Were working closely with i. T. As we bring on new technology to ensure that all the new technology is included in our operating procedures and stateoftheart. And then we do have some metrics like our preventative maintenance that we track internally that we would welcome sharing publicly. One of the things we absolutely track is the percent that are completed in a timely fashion. So with that said, thank you for listening to the report and for your ongoing focus on these trends because they do really add up to what is ultimately going to be Excellent Service and safe service and Reliable Service which is all of our shared goals. Very good. So im told we have one member of the public who wishes to comment. Lets have that. Is there anyone other than mr. Winer who wants to comment . Okay, seeing none, mr. Winer will have the final word from the public. The floor is yours. Overall, i support the findings on it, but i would like to see something more open. Like subjective responses. And those can be rated from negative to very favorable. For instance, one question i would like this see is having walking a longer distance to the bus stop determined your decision whether or not to take Public Transportation . Do you drive as a result of not having having to walk a Long Distance . What is very negative about the 15 ratings in the question, it doesnt leave the flexibility of comments. And when you dont get that flexibility, you get a very skewed perception as a result of the survey. So it really should be more open to all responses. Now, im not trying to point my finger at nelson nye guard, in particular, its to all surveys that are being conducted. When i fill out the surveys, i feel that i dont have very much room to make my comments. I try to squeeze them in. But its not exactly successful. So if you really want to have full input, really want to have a balanced perception and richer perception, you have to make the surveys more open to comments. Thank you. Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Directors, any questions or comments for staff . Director borden i want to say, we spend a lot of time looking at these numbers. One of the things i thought was missing on the chart, was showing what the goal was. You had 17 and 18 and then a check or minus, but it was really hard for people to know what the goal was. I would say in the future, when presenting the charts, if you could show the goal number. The goal is to be better, depending on what the number is. In many of the categories i know we have a fixed number that were trying to achieve. So i think it would be more transparent information if the chart showed what the goal number was and what the numbers were so people could figure out how were progressing. I felt if you didnt read the report, it was hard to figure out what some of the numbers meant in the various categories. Anyone else . Thank you, chairman. Two quick comments. The first is a repeat. I added up the metrics here and its 36. I continue to be concerned about having such a large number of priorities. You tend not to have any priorities when you have too many. You know, jeff began his presentation with pedestrian deaths and why were focused on that. And thats an example, i think, of an overridingly important and relevant performance indicator. There are lots of ways to get to an objective and im not sure tracking a lot of them really enriches the dialogue. I think in some cases it can make it more difficult to connect the data to the decisionmaking if there is just so much data. Having said that, one of the 36 really struck me. And that is the ontime performance for the nonRapid Service which is on its way to 50 . Which is another way of saying your bus is just as likely to be late as not. Thats a horrible result. And you know, one conclusion that i would draw from it, we need more Rapid Service. Because those lines are doing better. I wonder where we are in our plans on trying to introduce more Rapid Service, because the result weve got is this segregated system. [please stand by] rooted in the work that sfmta is on the Rapid Network and i want to talk about data. As a manager, i need more data to get into the roots of causality on how its performing on the linebyline basis and investments versus the stuff that were just letting trend according to the status quo. As we look at the data, congestion has increased over the last five years and the buses that are stuck in congestion are performing worse and as a result of performing worse, theyre also suffering declining ridership. Where weve invested ridership is up 17 . Which is extraordinary compared to any other city. Just like in vision zero, the places where director and her team are making investments, they are having the opposite performance every place else and the answer is do more in what the agency has investing in. Where we need improvements, while theres certain data we need to report from a regulatoy or prop e requirement standpoint we need to get better at the story telling. Rather than just reporting 32 numbers and how to use those numbers in order to build trust with the public. To be transparent about the areas where were failing and also to district u direct us whk succeeding. Thank you for confirming our wise decision. All right. Well the overunder on how long it would take for a commen for e that. Youve set two records. Let me address some of the specific on this. The point, which i understand a great deal, theres part of this dynamic or this report that i like because the various metrics are grouped under our Mission Statement goals and i think it was useful to do that and have the one main metric and group everything else. Im not so concerned about the many things as long as we stay focused on the Mission Statement goals. On the performance, were all struck by the same thing and the one sub metric that were barely 50 on time on our non local routes is staggering and as director said, i want the train there when i get there or soon after. Thats the case for most of our Rapid Service and maybe even for some of our local routes that have significant headway. Im gathering from this, and this can be considered b answerr julie, that the reason that were seeing a slide there is because when we have operator shortages, those, by factors of prioritization will effect the non rapid routes the most. Is that what is going on here . Is there another cause for that data point. I think theres three causes. The first is that its an incredibly unforgiving metric. We measure whether or not were running a minute early, up to four minutes late. A minute early every three quarters of a mile. So that is one issue. Is that unforgiving it makes the metrics meaningless . Yes. Thats the single cycle of a traffic light. So hitting an unexpected green light means we fail our metric. If you need the dat need the. Dan , anthe data, why are wt help us . We use that metric because its in the charter but as the director indicated, were much more focused on terminal departures on our infrequent routes, because thats our biggest control point. And headway adherence or service gaps because its how most of our customers experience the service. The second reason that the number is low is because of the operator shortage. You are absolutely correct. And the third reason on our downtown routes is congestion. Some of the these hill top routes, with the exception of a few bottlenecks like what the 33 might experience on clayton, for example, theyre not in a lot of congestion. Getting individuals to operate so precisely to, not the four minutes but the one minute, is really tough. Ok. So, i mean, a lot of this is perception, right. We dont want our riding public to think that were failing and that theyre experiencing if its good is different. I just i mean, maybe were stuck with a metric and the charter that is not a good metric and i feel like ive had this discussion before because i have. I wonder if it makes sense to have more communication around that and more communication of here is why we dont think this mat trick is all that valuable and here is the valuable metrics and conclude them, even if were required to put in a metric that we dont think is all that great. To go ahead and actually front the discussion and not wait for what seems to happen a lot, which is wait a second, this metric doesnt mean anything. So, more of a comment for next year than for this year. And on the metro ridership piece, you said it was through june. So it was this effected at all by the tunnel shut down . It shouldnt have been significantly effected. That surprises me. And is that do we think its more of a measurement issue because were only doing it at fair gate or what is the explanation for why muni metro ridership is down. And a meaningful percent, actually. I think that we should come back at the next meeting and include the current fiscal years. That it did surprise me as well and im not prepared to give you the full explanation right now. We have added a lot of capacity on the system in the last 18 months. We do still have a lot of transit priority work to do on the surface rail system as well as the over all subway reliability. Right. So just to be transparent, let me tell you why thats the metric in this report that concerned me the most. The entire thrust of what ive been doing for the last, how many years its been, and with you and with all of these fine folks, is to build a better Transit System so people will tuesday and get out of their cars. The issue we were facing in the metro was twofold. One, there were not often but frequent enough to be annoying delays and service, significant delay and services and it was unreliable and had people thinking if im driving on that day i do better. The more significant obstacle was crowding. Is that people are being passed up particularly at castro and church stations ochurch stationy home from work. If ridership is declining, that suggests to me that were missing the mark. Our goal is to create more capacity and get more people on those trains off of the streets. If ridership is declining its a metric successor with problems all over the place. I just find it hard to believe, given what i see on a daily basis. I will look forward to seeing the updated figure. I will say, thats an extremely important figure to me because if were losing ridership in the subway, thats a big problem. As a daily k. L. M. Rider, i cant speak precisely to causality but were not providing the level of service that our passengers deserve in the subway. Particularly in the morning peak. Threecar shuttles sound like a great idea. Thank you for raising it. [laughter] we will be bringing that up. A whole package of improvements in this coming year to this board to address the operational problems that the subway faces. I know we have another agenda item on this. On that one specific metric, if you could please come back to us when you can. Whether its in your next presentation on the status of the metro or at the next meeting. And explain where we are currently on ridership numbers and if theres been a decline that a tributes causality to it, please. Absolutely. Thank you. I have two more clarifying questions. So if, as you said in the presentation, part of the point is to make this more accessible to the public and more easily understandable to the public and weve just agreed the ontime performance metric is not the metric that is so relevant anymore. I just would love to have someone sort of explain. I think you mentioned its gaps or something. Could you direct us to the metric that you think is more appropriate for us to be focused on that speaks to that experience of showing up and not having to wait so long. The one with bunching is part of that too, right . If you turn in the presentation to i jumped up too quick. Its 2. 2. 1. You will see that its trending in the right direction. And the reason that were focusing on gaps and not bunching is that while bunching is an operational problem and a red flag for me, from a customer perspective, its not an impact. If two buses show up to pick you up, you are happy if one bus shows up to pick you up. You are waiting for an hour for that bus. The problem is somewhere else in the system, theres a gap. Thats why wer