Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 1, 2013 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT

4:00 pm
subtle items not readily the public are things like fire hide drants, curb ramps and rehabilitation and sewer line rehabilitation and we are building a brt and as well as revitalizing the whole van ness corridor as part of this project. in relation to that work that's within the project there is a number of parallel projects going on. sfgov is replacing the traffic signals and overhauling the trolley wire structure in serious need of replacement. puc is coming in doing sewer work and water line replacement along with procuring new radios for communication and traffic signal control and vehicle procurement. on the -- in line with the vehicle procurement as part of our regular vehicle
4:01 pm
replacement process the project will be picking up 38 of the new coaches that the agency is getting for brt service. 23 of those will be 60-foot trolley coaches and 15 of those will be 60-foot motor coaches which will upgrade the 47 line to 60-footers and allow for increased capacity of the 47 line. the project is currently estimated to run about 125 million in design and construction dollars. we have between 105 and 108 million in funding at the moment and that involves negotiation with cal trans and other agencies exactly what their contribution to the project will be, so there is a funding gap that we're working
4:02 pm
to close. and finally where are we now on the project? we're finishing the eir /eis, the environmental process and expect a decision from the federal government in september of this year. we've already started preliminary engineering and are working on what the mta refers to as conceptual engineering report and essentially 30% design that will help lock down the final costs of the project as well as the total scope of work of the project, and we will be doing extensive outreach to basically everybody, the public, other city departments and other agencies to make sure that that 30% report includes everything that needs to be included in the scope of work and identifies all of the parallel projects and interfaces properly and if you have any questions i am happy to answer them. >>i am sure we do. an
4:03 pm
for a very comprehensive report. i just have one right away. i didn't get the you there put -- what does that mean? >> it's how many bodies you're moving through the corridor at any given period of time. >> okay. >> to clarify i think the point in the statement is even we're taking away two travel lanes that are typically populated with automobiles with one person in them because we will have more transit capacity if you look at the quarter on the whole as a transportation corridor we won't lose capacity and likely gain capacity so although we lose some of the single occupancy automobiles we're down to two lanes each we will move more people on transit which is of course what we want. >> still don't like the word -- >> [inaudible] >> want to hear from the public first or members? okay. thank
4:04 pm
you. don't go for far. we have members of the public that would like to address on this topic. >> [calling speaker names] . those are the two people that have turned in a speaker card. >> good afternoon sir. >> good afternoon directors. i am taking off work because this is important. i live and work on van ness. i have been transversing that corridor over the years since high school. it hasn't changed much since then. there is no need to spend $125 million to tear up the street and do something that is a disaster. if you want to speed it up make the 47 a limited. do bulb outs and save time and hold the light. all of those things are done quickly and cheaply and they're taking away several of the stops. if you do that anyway with the 47l you will speed it up. there are other problems. obviously you're taking a way a lane of traffic. we have three. you're
4:05 pm
putting it to two and one of the lanes is a throw away and there is ups, other deliveries and ga badge trucks and people backing into spaces so you're cutting it down to one. all of the side streets -- whether franklin or gof or polk street they can't handle additional traffic and you're removing the left hand lanes. every time there say station or platform you make the traffic go along the sidewalk so that will make it a very unattendable situation and at the cafe and on the road and the trucks and cars whizzing past you. you're going to make van ness a wiggle. instead of going straight it's going to wiggle around the platforms. that is probably going to cause more accidents. you're taking away quarter of the parking. it's
4:06 pm
fully parked and people will circle the neighborhoods and add to the pollution and more accidents people not looking where they're going. i guess that's pretty much what i wanted to cover. i think you should realize these issues. that's highway 101. the single cars are coming from marin most of them. >> thank you sir. >> that's are people not living on the street. we take bus. we walk. huge mistake. >> thank you next speaker please. >> good afternoon again directors. i want to speak to the van ness brt. i served on the board from the beginning. it didn't take four years to start like mexico city. i think i have been on it since 2007 or whatever and won't start until 2018 and a lot of plumbing work and complex thing. one of the things i am happy with we only
4:07 pm
had to add one station and found in the study they could get rid of one and we have the minimum number of staitionzs and i believe the study is going to work but i want to speak to the parking connection because the state wanted wider lanes because they feel it's their standard. it want fed to eliminate a number of parking spaces and there are 35% more riders and many of them live in this neighborhood. some of the people will choose to get rid of their cars and these are the cars not parked in garages. these are parked on the street so we're making -- we will probably be making more than 100 spaces available. now it's your job to get right in there and put a meter, right in a residential neighborhood to preserve the parking for the merchants. the mta will do a good job of finding yellow
4:08 pm
spots which are essential for trucks and you have to help the merchant and the reason i mention this because this will happen again and again and do muni you have to remove parking and when you improve the muni more people ride it and less need to own a car and therefore you can take these parking spaces. we gave you this right and be brave and put a meter in and help the merchants by having the meters. help the people get rid of their car. there is no limit to the amount of parking that people need if it's available. norm used to tell a tale -- i'm going to take another second and apartment house and didn't have a car and a space was available and bought a car. we are reverse this terrible curve. >> mr. chairman that's the last person that turned in a speaker card. >> members of the board have questions or comments? okay. sure. >> i'm sorry i didn't fill out
4:09 pm
a card but i just realized there were a number of questions came up because they weren't addressed. how is golden gate transit related to this? i think it's important to answer that because i take them once in a while and there are important stops there and i want to know how they're going to be preserved and mix in with the city buss? next is it would be good know how many parking spaces are gained and lost and where? and he's talking about meters -- there are meters all along van ness. what are you talking about? the only part is north of bombard which is ridiculous to put meters because there are very few if any business there is, maybe a corner store and that's it, so i think more concerns to worry about like dealing with traffic
4:10 pm
congestion. also will you put the timing back on franklin street when this goes in place because of the fact that losing a lane could hurt -- bigger traffic congestion during all times of the day because timing of the lights are not that good on van ness when you get up to broadway. all of a sudden you hit the broadway light going northbound, always hit it so the time suggest not good. like was said go to van ness the timing is burden. no they're not. they are up to broadway but then hit that and another light before lombard street so the timing need be improved and the traffic moves north because it's a major street to get through the city most of the time. i have gone to take octavia a lot because van ness can be a
4:11 pm
troashious. it would be good to have links on the mta website on the front page. i think it's important that everybody have access to it and maybe send out email blasts or a press release about this draft eir because it's not well publicized as far as i can tell. >> thank you. anyone else wish to address the board on this topic? >> [inaudible] >> let's check with board members first here. members of the board. director rubke anything -- >> sure. >> anyone want to go? >> i will go. thank you chairman nolan. thank you staff for bringing this us to review and like chairman nolan i'm a huge fan of brt. didn't have to go to mexico to fall in love with it. i read systems in the usa and they're compatible and the systems are narrower and
4:12 pm
similar to what we have to work with here in san francisco. you know regarding some of the concerns that have been raised the construction and all of that is -- it's not going to be a lot more than street surfacing so the worries about that are something that we can deal with. i really value this project because of the fact that very rarely is anybody whizzing on van ness ever and every time i get the opportunity i want to remind folks i was a regular rider of the 49 on a daily basis and still o occasionally read it and if anybody thinks what we have now is going to be better if you take out a few stops you're not riding that route. those buses would sit in traffic there. we need our own lane to win the ridership and save the
4:13 pm
efficiency and the resources that are going into and we're are effectively burning and wasting by not having better and efficient transit service there now. i am very concerned about how long this project is taking and the recent delay that's kicked us out to two years. i know there has been a tremendous amount of work that has gone into this and the push back has come from the state from what i understand, the delay for another two years, but at the same time i am also wary of what is going on within the mta -- or the cta that allowed us to fall into this predicament and the reason i raise this is i am personally aware of the process like this on projects in the country moving faster than this and bigger and more
4:14 pm
complicated. right across the way in oakland which was significantly behind this project just a few years ago is significant ahead of this project and it's got twice as many stations, twice as long, twice as expensive, and goes through three jurisdictions. it should seem to have taken longer to do that, and yet we accelerated over there past this project and they had their challenges with caltrans as well because it's operating on a state highway also. i understand there are values we have to trade off with respect to preserving landscaping or accommodating street widths or what have you, but i want to really suggest that we really start to recognize this is going to be a fundamental transformation of the way that transit works in san francisco and it's not going to make everyone happy. there is going to be a few break make this
4:15 pm
omelet and in commines to do it. there will be parking impacts and we can reduce those through the reduction of parking. i would go to gar deli square and have to drive because the transit service was too slow and force me to take a car and take a space that other people could have used in the community so if we make the transit service more reliable we will reduce the need for parking and the parking is something we need to own up to and a challenge that we need to deal with and get over. i want to make sure that we're all on the same page with the respect to the community support that is there for this project and would really support this project when it comes up for a decision and i would like them to acknowledge that support. the know the san francisco riders
4:16 pm
here today because they're professionals working or regular folks that have a job and can't be here at a meeting like this are organizing their own community meetings and busting at the seams with supporters for the project. there seems to be i enough support to make those hard choices to get this project going. we've waited too long. we need to find ways to do more than what we have or face a crim spelling of the system and i encourage them to get it going even if it means making hard choices. >> thank you. director. >>i want to echo what director ramos said. i know he has more experience than a lot of this and i am concerned with the delay and i would like this to move faster and there is the ability to whiz past van ness and it's the bus passengers and
4:17 pm
they're not going to be stuck in traffic. in mexico and riding the brt and the cars stopped and the bus going through with headways was amazing. one question. with the fine details and such as parking meters added on side streets that was talked about. is that sorted out in the design phase? has it been addressed or as we get further along in the project? >> the parking has been addressed the stations picked up and lost are identified in the environmental report. anybody interested in the parking i suggest go to appendix and it has a block by block break down and how many are eliminated because of the project. the actual changing of the stops
4:18 pm
and the installation and removal of meters, that type of thing, is happening in the next few months. once the environmental report is completed we will use that as a model to basis parking legislation on, and my team is working with the city's traffic engineer to draft that legislation and we will be coming back after community outreach and so forth within the next few months, so if we get the decision in september then sometime in late winter or spring you will hear about parking legislation. >> while you're up there one more question because i know director ramos brought it up -- director nolan brought it up. do you see any ability to speed this up? do you think as director ramos asked we're willing to make hard decisions and push on this do you see the ability for this to move
4:19 pm
faster? am i putting you too much on the spot there? >> we're looking at ways to try to save time on the project, and we maybe able to knock a few months off the schedule, maybe as much as half a year, but there are a lot of interest groups quite justly have an interest in this project, and we have to take the time to hear their concerns, and figure out what the proper approach is. >> okay. thank you. i just want to say that i feel like we are addressing parking concerns all over the city. we are addressing it with better transit and walking and taxi service and car sharing that we are hearing about in this agenda. i know parking is a big concern but i think as we have heard moving forward we can manage the parking to make it
4:20 pm
available. i mean we know we can do that so we just need to move on that and manage the parking. be make sure it's available to the people that need it and people that want to take fabulous brt or taxi or car share experience can do that as well. >> thank you director. director rubke. >> i heard from members -- >> [inaudible] >> thanks. i heard from members from the blind community and i know you're familiar with their upon concerns and i want to bring it up here and thank you for your initial outreach and i know you're going to do more and please do as much as you can and as can you imagine crossing a lane of traffic at once is frightening without vision and having islands is the worse case scenario for my friends who are visually impaired but with that said they're exciting working with you guys and design accessible features and a
4:21 pm
boarding platform in the middle and the design here really accessible and wonderful and safe for everyone. i think on that issue i think it's very important that we take the time. i don't want to slow down the project but to address those concerns because those members of our public are very vulnerable in the situation of crossing the street with divided lanes and i want those folks to get to the bus safely so if there is anything i can do to help that let me know, and i also know people were concerned about the proposed stops. of course everyone is passionate about removing particular stops. i am interested in hearing the reasoning of having a stop at mccallister instead of grove and if you could address that that would be great. >> the primary reason it's to preserve the east-west connection with the number five line. >> okay. >> we looked at -- as i
4:22 pm
mentioned before we looked at the stops that were going to be consolidated. the one at grove had the least ridership of the three. basically we looked immediately to the south, to the north and the stop on either side are more ridership than grove street so it's the one that ended up being consolidateed. >> fair enough and you know you have a large population of blind folks coming from that location. >> and we intend to work closely with that. i can tell you i walked sections of the corridor with the ada coordinator and paula johnson from the mayor's office and we're maximizing the comfort for the people in the disabled community. >> thank you. >> you were getting up -- were you going to answer somebody? >> oh the erg
4:23 pm
transit. we are working with them and using the same stops. we are coordinating and essentially they can run in the brt lanes and get in and out to make their other runs and other parts of the city as they need to, so golden gate transit has been taken into account and i wanted to make that sure that was clear. >> yeah. the schedule here -- the period that seems awfully long to me is the 30% signed completed and 100% design completed and year and a half, year and a quarter. does that offer possibilities for saving time? >> if things go smoothly we might be able to save some time on that. as i said there are a fair amount of coordination that has to go on. if we're talking about what i see as the next hurdle we have to get over is coming with agreement with the arts commission and other people
4:24 pm
involved in the civic design review process as to what the stations are going to look like and what the corridor is going to look like. once we lock that down the design can proceed more quickly. >> director was talking about tough decisions and one might be is having nor designers and move it along. is that the kind of thing? >> if i can address some of the schedule questions and concerns? first of all my reaction generally is the same as yours with the schedule looking forward that another two years with design and two years to build seems like an awfully long time and longer than should be required so some things that we're doing -- we have advanced some of the preliminary design so we're moving that forward. we have looked at resource levels in terms of our staffing to make sure between us or dpw
4:25 pm
or whoever is involved in the design that we have everybody working at full capacity, but moreover what i have talked with vince harris is about is evaluating different project delivery methods. that there maybe different ways to deliver the project and reduce the time it takes from the schedule now which shows a traditional design build delivery method. we may complete the analysis and determine it wouldn't save time or different methods might have adverse impacts but it's something we're going to look at because i agree with you that getting from 30 to 100 to revenue service shouldn't take that long, so we will certainly do everything that we can to look at ways, whether it's through staffing at rks a different differ ree method, partnering with agencies and a
4:26 pm
contractor to figure out ways to advance the schedule. there was reference made to delays and caltrans. i think was a story that said caltrans caused the two year delay. that is absolutely inaccurate and incorrect and i have talked to the regional director about the project. he's very supportive. the former head of the transportation authority and head of dpw went to meet with the head of caltrans late last year to ensure their support and helping to move this along, so i don't want us to throwing them under the bus. it's their road and they have been pretty good to work with. the schedule
4:27 pm
hasn't really slipped much i don't think in the last year, or the record of decision we were hoping would be earlier this year. as peter said should be around september, and the way it works is the environmental will be certified by the transportation authority commission. that will really kind of lock inue were talking about the hard decisions and mostly about travel lanes and parking. when they do that -- i mean to some extent you have both done that, their commission and this board, and the approval of the locally preferred alternative. presuming they certify the environmental and maybe it will change based on the comments and nonetheless it will come here for approval. the parking changes are well defined. with your approval of those that's the main trade off
4:28 pm
decisions that we typically face in the transportation projects. that will be done from that point forward it's design and build. the transportation authority has been working very closely with us that they will hand it over to us at the record of decision but they have done an extraordinary amount of outreach to the blind community and others but many stakeholders up and down the corridor and because of their outreach there is the level of support as you say for the project. there is a lot of -- i mentioned michael sc beuse he's the lead on the environmental and i want to acknowledge the project manager, sherri dafrosty and one the one handing the keys over to the project upon receipt of the record of decision but we are working closely with them. we
4:29 pm
all have an interest in moving this project as quickly as possible and nobody wants to wait until 2018 and we are coordinated and committed to make that happen sooner. >> is there a version of design build? >> so when when i was talking about delivery methods design build is a candidate. there are others and other delivery models that other city agencies and other public agencies and transit agencies are using. some may apply better to certain types of projects. design build is typically done on design projects but design build is one of the delivery methods we will be a little evaluating and may provide opportunities to reduce the schedule. >> other city departments involved in this -- i think you mentioned -- >> the civic design review committee which is a committee of the arts commission which
4:30 pm
has jurisdiction over surface elements in the public right-of-way. dpw has jurisdiction. caltrans has jurisdiction. the planning department i believe has some jurisdiction. the puc has significant infrastructure, so there's a lot of patients of the city family. >> >> and other agencies such as utilities need to be coordinating with during the construction to make sure it goes smoothly. >> and the example of the pagoda theater and how they work together when there is urgent's and i hope that and some are outside -- >> yeah, i spent six years here developing relationships and how to work with other city departments so we will absolutely work


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on