Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 8, 2010 8:30pm-9:00pm PST

8:30 pm
transportation authority project oversight work. commissioner alioto-pier: in -- commissioner maxwell: in the beginning, we kept on coming back to the well with parsons. was there an initial scope of work, initial price, so was it done in phases? it reads like there is more. >> we have an original contract and not with parsons from 2007 when we initiated the environmental work and product development. you can see the total amount before you in the presentation, $1.7 million. this included environmental analysis on two alternatives, 12% project development. we did amend the contract in 2009 and it + 2 @ scope to the environmental work. fortunately, as a result of the
8:31 pm
scoping process, we did need to add another build alternative analysis into the mix. we also needed to build in the scope to address the caltrans approval process. the project report, we were able to negotiate with caltrans on a streamlined process, so a combined report instead of sequentially. we feel it is still something we need to do. the reason we added that later was because we did not want to negotiate with caltrans to try to get something more streamlined, so we did. it was something we needed to add to amendment a. now where we are is this proposed amendment fee. -- amendment b. there are two scope additions to our work with parsons.
8:32 pm
the first one relates to environmental analysis work. over the last year, we have done a lot of out reach with our partner agencies and with the public, particularly our citizens advisory committee, and as a result of that out reach, have been analyzing design scenarios that respond to agency concerns and stickle their questions and concerns. the largest part of this contract amendment is our approach to 30% project development which is something that we have worked out with mta over the past year, and we have -- are going to have an effective approach. commissioner maxwell: so this is not anything that you saw in the beginning? as you went along the way, you decided that this would be good? >> yes, the 30% project development approach that we had going in at the beginning in
8:33 pm
2007 was just to have parsons do basic civil work. what we have learned, and now we have built up a team that includes mt a, a capital project staff -- mta, capital projects that, staff engineers, is it will be more efficient ultimately to initiate many of these engineering tests sooner. now they can start sharing that information and expand the activity, beyond basic civil war, into other areas, signal design, for example. it brings more of these activities for word, so it is a much higher level of effort than we thought we would do for 30%, but we are recommending it. we think it will be more efficient in the end.
8:34 pm
again, we are doing quite well in this project, in terms of the cost in this phase. the proposal before you is related to a cost for this phase which is 7% of the total capital cost, and that is below industry average for what this stage typically costs. commissioner mar: thank you. >> i hope i have answered your questions. everything else here addresses the specifics of the scope of the engineering work that parsons would do, and how that would compare to the scope of work that dpw and mta would do. construction is slated to start in 2013, service beginning in 2015. commissioner mar: for the public interest, groundbreaking would be somewhere around 2013, and
8:35 pm
the project completed some time around the end of 2014? >> yes, early 2015. commissioner mar: thank you. any other questions? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection, can remove this item fort with recommendations? thank you. next item. >> recommend increasing the amount of the authority's professional services contract with jacobs engineering group by $1,054,565, to a total amount not to exceed $2,854,565, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. transportation planner. very similar to the van ness project, geary brt is identified in the countywide transportation
8:36 pm
plan and is one of the key routes identified in the transit affected this project of mt a. as we move forward, the feasibility study was adopted in 2007 to begin the eir eis. one thing i should note that is different about geary, the prop k line which specifies it must be rail-ready. we are doing more on the design work to make sure that if the decision is made to enhance rail, the physical dimensions are incorporated so we can minimize potential impact. one of the first items i should know in terms of new scope, we identified three alternative contract amendments. the contract identified only two build alternatives. similar to van ness, we are looking at three build alternatives in addition to the
8:37 pm
baseline. we have many different technical studies under way for the project. as part of the study, one thing we have identified are a couple of new areas of work that need to be focused on, moving forward. part of the design drawings, they pay focus to that, and a majority of the pending studies are contingent on the completion of the design drawings. as soon as they are complete, we expect them next year to move forward with additional studies. one of the key areas we need to focus on, moving forward, is more analysis of the separate intersections and transition zones. for geary, we're looking at the corridor between market street and the ocean. we are focused on potential dedicated lanes between van ness and 33rd, but it requires us to look at how the quarter integrates 1-way couplets east
8:38 pm
of galt. then we need to focus on how we can integrate the a typical intersections. there are some transition analyses. another area is the great intersection segments themselves. one of the territory have learned, talking to communities, wanted to do more analysis of the fillmore area. we started with what we thought would be three alternatives, moving into the environmental analysis as a result of committed to feedback, we needed to do nine. we now know we are able to narrow them down to two but we need to do more work, particularly on the engineering side of what happens at fillmore, if we fill in the trench and bring traffic to the surface. this is one of the things that has produced significant
8:39 pm
community support. then at masonic -- commissioner mar: could i slow you down a little bit? fillmore and the geary, the filling in of the tunnel has community support, but it has a $50 million price tag, compared to the service road option. >> right, filling in the tragic costs more than maximizing the existing operation of the service road. a number one concern we have heard from the community is a way to bring the communities on either side of geary back together and to reduce the barrier that jury creates with -- here it creates with the existing expressway. -- geary creates with the existing expressway. [unintelligible]
8:40 pm
money to do more engineering work in order to get there. commissioner maxwell: you mentioned that four classes of service. >> in the case of van ness, there are two services, up 47, 49. they're both locals. with the geary, we have the third a limited which would become brt service. then we have express' services at the golden gate as well. one thing we need to incorporate is making sure those services can be accommodated within the brt segment of the busway by incorporating a passing option. we need to do more analysis of that as well as part of this next phase. commissioner maxwell: when you mention filling in, you mean actually putting in dirt and building it up so that -- a >> exactly. restoring the normal street
8:41 pm
pattern. -- >> exactly. restoring the normal street pattern. at masonic, there are two options we are about a wedding as well. we are not changing the features, however, we need to incorporate more analysis of particularly bicycle facilities in the area, which is something that came out of our analysis in the past couple of years, and also, coordination on some of the new developments, figuring out how to mitigate the potential impacts. the bicycle planning from the masonic to presidio is one of the key areas we identified as part of our analysis over the last couple of months. one of the things that we found is there is a desire to
8:42 pm
incorporate a bicycle facilities somewhere in the geary court. through our analysis, we found there is already earmarked route east of presidio on post and west of masonic, there are other options available from the geary corridor. we identified that through our analysis as well as through feedback from the cycling community and general community, including ride along in this corridor. there are other options, but with those being the two possibilities, it leaves the segment between masonic and presidio. so the need to incorporate a bicycle facility there is another area. commissioner maxwell: a bicycle facility is where you store your bike when you get on a train? >> it could be a class 1 or dedicated bike lane.
8:43 pm
when you are describing could be bicycle amenities. these are the sort of thing we are trying to sort out, the amenities we need to incorporate, bicycle parking, how does one access the brt facility with their bike, as well as how we incorporate bicycle access for people who would like to ride in the geary corridor. commissioner mar: that is an important transit hub. there is the muni offices and other things, but if a target moves into the old sears facility, that would be an incredible destination spot. bike amenities and facilities, that sounds wonderful. >> another area where we identified a need for more robust analysis is what happens east of van ness.
8:44 pm
mta identified east of how long that it -- paul that could use more traffic signals -- powell that could use more traffic signals and design improvement. we saw the need to further optimize what happens east of van ness. through the course of this a valuation by mta and community feedback, we have identified a need for an even more robust scenario east of van ness. so that is a new area of the report. in terms of the current request, we have three different tasks identified. the project management and then the environmental analysis, engineering work, the addition of a new build alternative is a new era of work. transitioned, passing zones. more robust samaras for the east of van ness areas -- areas for
8:45 pm
the east of van ness. modeling to see how the different facilities and users interact with each other is another scope of work improvement. for this request, for the contract amendment, we are focused on the jacob's work. that is just a portion of the work to be completed. the request is for $1.5 million for this area. but just to wrap up on the timeframe, we expect to complete this work in 2012 and move to final design and construction and finally by 2015, 2016, to see the project launched. i will take any questions you might have. commissioner maxwell: are you working with mt a? i see not so much on the geary
8:46 pm
boulevard, but as we talk about bicycle villard's from the north to south, are you working with mta on those kinds of facilities? and therefore, if there was at corridor, it would not necessarily have to be on geary boulevard, but could be on another street that is less used. are we looking into that? >> actually, the work that was done to understand where in the gary corridor, that was led by mt es, leading into the space of work. the bike plan did identify a programmatic acknowledgment of a cheery facility in this area, rather, a facility in their geary corridor. it is something that could be seen as a next up for by planning, and it would be led by mta. commissioner maxwell: so there
8:47 pm
is no specific work on bike corridors, boulevard? they have them in berkeley, san jose, so there is a dedicated lane, a place for bicycles. >> there are multiple different developments of that moving forward. there are developments of cycle tracks that are being identified. those would be referred to as class 1 facilities because it is fully dedicated and in some cases may even be at a higher level than the street. there are also developments for bicycle lanes and other improvements coming from the bicycle plant that are now being implemented with the injunction. >> deputy for planning. just to answer your question more broadly, we know -- we are
8:48 pm
working with the mta to initiate their forays and piloting a bicycle facilities of the cycle track nature that you are talking about. for example, on the market street corridor, they are experimenting with different treatments, right turn restrictions. we are trying to see even what could be beyond that, boxes, but signals. the authority has also allocated funding for jfk boulevard through golden gate park. that is something that they are also working on. in the next phase of our county- wide transportation plan, we are looking at an entire network that the bicycle coalition has proposed. commissioner maxwell: thank you. commissioner mar: colleagues, any other questions? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item?
8:49 pm
seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this item ford with pregnant -- forward with recommendations? without objection. next item. >> item 5. recommend award of a two-year consultant contract to wmh corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,600,000, for engineering and environmental services for the yerba buena island bridge structures and authorization for the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> i am the project manager for the yerba buena island structures project. just some history, we have been working with the past two years with the treasure island developer and authority and economic workforce here in the city for transportation improvements on the island. i want to give you an overview of this project in particular
8:50 pm
and highlight some of the eligibility good news we have in terms of other funding and then discuss with you the consult and contract in front of you. it is important to understand there are nine and bridge structures, as we see here on the west -- as we see here, on the west side that connects to the bay bridge. that is the focus of the project ahead of us. it is also important to recognize preliminary bridge inspection reports indicate that they are seismically vulnerable. they are eligible for federal highway bridge funding. the good news is, we recently received funding for $1.57 million to start preparation of seismic strategy reports, to investigate what needs to be done to meet current seismic
8:51 pm
standards. all funding will be reimbursed not only by hbp federal dollars but also by treasure island development authority. they will be providing a local match, consistent with a memorandum of agreement that we executed a few years ago with tida. i will give you a brief overview out of the selection process for the consultant. the first thing we did is made with caltrans when we received eligibility. they needed to go through the feconsultant selection process. we issued her rfq's october 15. we received six statements of qualifications, shore listed the four, interviewed last week, and have the no. 1 ranking recommendation to the committee
8:52 pm
to award a two-year contract with wmh corporation in the amount not to exceed $1.6 million for the engineering and environmental analysis. they have met all the goals and are consistent with federal requirements. if you have any questions, i may be able to answer. commissioner mar: let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection, let's move this item forward with recommendations. thank you. next item. >> item 6. state and federal legislative update. this is an information item. >> just a recap of where we stand, recent activities in sacramento. the legislature convened in session yesterday. both houses reelected the existing leadership and adopted
8:53 pm
rules. at the same time, the governor introduced a proclamation calling them into special session under the proposition 58 provision enacted a few years ago. the intent of the governor is to see if they can achieve up to $8 billion of reductions before the new governor takes office, a boost to address the $80 million shortfall. one of the key committee chairs was killed yesterday in the senate. mark leno was appointed the budget chair. on the assembly side, assemblymember mal has been appointed as the assistant protem. the governor's approacproposal,l
8:54 pm
not go into details, other than to note that he wanted to see if we could close the $6 billion gap and leave the $19 billion budget gap for a new governor- elect jerry brown to address. he offered $8 billion worth of solutions. i think we talked briefly last time i was here, that this might unfold, and certainly, the legislature is more interested in dealing with the new governor. however, within the package that was introduced yesterday, there is one element that affects transportation, and ironically, it may be the one element that its legislature in its waning days deals with. we had the fuel tax swap, and eliminate the sales tax on gas, state excise tax rate. generated about $1 billion, at that point in time, for general
8:55 pm
fund savings. the approval of proposition 22 by voters in november clouded those savings to the extent that it is believe that at least $800 million of that was not achievable. the governor's proposal -- believe it or not, they found a work around proposition 22 already. every time you think proponents will write these things in a buttoned down sort of way, there is always a work around. in essence, what they are doing is dedicating, going after a $800 million worth of funds derived from truck weight fees that are deposited strayed into the state highway account, rather than into the other transportation accounts protected by proposition 22. so they will be able to redirect that money to pay for proposition 1b debt service. the rest of the fuel tax swap will stay, in effect, for the time being.
8:56 pm
as a net result, transportation resources are not divorced -- reduced. it is consistent with the levels that are adopted, estimated in the fuel tax swap early last year. the one valley i would add, by being able to achieve this general fund savings, it makes it easier for proposition 1b bonds to continue to be a source of funding. in other words, the motivation of the legislature to appropriate the bonds this coming year and in future years, is much more strengthened by the fact that there is an actual non-general fund source to pay for the debt service. in a nutshell, that is what is affecting transportation, probably the one item that will be adopted in the coming month, as the senate and assembly take a look at the governor's proposals. that is my report for today. commissioner mar: thank you. commissioner maxwell?
8:57 pm
commissioner maxwell: who goes around and looks at these and crannies and comes up with this? >> they have a very creative staff. commissioner maxwell: obviously. >> the transportation manager and his staff, they are the ones that look at this proposition so carefully and they are looking at the funding streams. i guess they have enough time on their hands to find these loopholes. commissioner maxwell: so are you saying that this will always be available, the truck weight? >> that remains to be seen. if i had to guess, yes. rather than those fees being used or made his rehabilitation on the highway system, supplementing other funds that are there, and then being back filled by the fuel tax swap, in essence, we have come to the same point as last february. it is just the identified source is more clearly delineated.
8:58 pm
commissioner maxwell: so at some point, they will have to repair the state systems, so the money they had, they no longer have. so that will have to back filled. >> that is correct. to put that in perspective, the total amount of fees collected in the state are about $1 billion. they're looking and dedicating about 800. i bet it will go up to $1 billion next year. the total amount of tax revenues available to caltrans for maintenance and rehabilitation is in the $800 billion range. the total annual needs for just rehabilitation are in the range of $6 billion, and they are only able to afford about $2 billion. there is an existing $4 billion shortfall to begin with. i think the legislature will have their work cut out. commissioner mar: thank you.
8:59 pm
this is an information item. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you so much. item 7. >> introduction of new items. commissioner mar: i believe there are no new items. colleagues? thank you. item 8. >> public comment. commissioner mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item nine. adjournment. commissioner mar: thank you for to everyone for being here. meeting adjourned.