Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 30, 2018 5:00pm-6:01pm PST

5:00 pm
e, and f, and 10.4, 5, 6, and 7. all approved? all opposed? okay. who is the member of the public on d, e, and f, do you want to hear these together or separate public comment? >> there's several. melanie, herbert, and kelly. >> maybe -- these are items related to the item we have later on the agenda about the overnight parking. >> oh, d, e, and f are. >> yeah. which is item 13. might it make sense to combine those with the -- >> do the policy first and then hear those consent calendar items? yes, that probably does make sense. if the members of the public who ask for those to be severed have no objections, we will hold off on d, e, and f until we hear the item on the
5:01 pm
overnight parking. any problem? okay. thank you, director. that was a very good question. let's move onto items 10.4, 5, 6, and 7. director eakin, go ahead. [inaudible] >> -- significantly extend the due dates for projects, so just as we're going to approve the capital improvement program later today, i would just wonder if someone from the staff wants to comment why we're seeing these cost overruns, project delays, and what can be done to mitigate against these types of situations in the future. >> okay. thank you. >> so i guess i can speak to that. a couple of things. first of all, we have been seeing very significant cost inflation in terms of bids that we're getting on all kinds of construction work. traffic signals is one small
5:02 pm
example. we're getting bids that are double maybe just two or three years ago, so that's one of the factors that we're seeing and that we have tried to take into account as we've provided the estimates for the upcoming work in the capital budget. in terms of the schedule, couple of these projects that were related had some extraordinary schedule delays that were -- came from a number of reasons. what we haven't done in the past is while we provide contingency for cost, we haven't provided it for schedule, so that's something that we -- we are also changing going forward. with regard to four and five -- 10.4 and 10.5, they were two large contracts that were somewhat related.
5:03 pm
there were some overlaps and kind of where -- the work was all happening around the same place, around our balboa park station yard, and we had numerous unforeseen circumstances. we had numerous scope additions that as the work was happening, we asked the contractor to do more. we did have some contractor performance issues that we do not compensate the contractor for, and then, some of those things impacted it so that the two kind of played off each other because where we had a delay on one, we created a delay on the other. so we have been working to kind of comprehensively evaluation and overhaul the way that we do our project delivery overall from the very early planning where we're now -- in engineering, where we're now doing more exploratory work so we have fewer unforeseen conditions. we're building better and more
5:04 pm
realistic schedules with schedule contingency, and we're trying to keep up with the cost escalation that we're seeing from the contracting community. this is something that we're seeing with all city agencies, we're seeing it with private development. you've heard this a lot with regard to housing, that the cost to building housing is significantly higher now, that there's so much, both public and private construction demand, that the labor supply can't keep up. so i guess your -- to answer your overall question, we're trying as best as possible to first of all make improvements that we can, internally, but to incorporate this knowledge of capital and working projects into our c.i.p. so that we can fully execute the projects in our c.i.p. as we've laid out and we'll be proposing to you later in the meeting. >> i have a proposed question,
5:05 pm
then? >> yeah. >> when we over run our time change, does that recalibrate the price for the same thing? when we originally bid out the contract -- a stop sign, for $1 million, and when we have this issue when where we have cost overruns and are abobehind, do pay the $1 million or the $2 million. >> no. the way the contracts are bid, they're bidding unit prices. so if it's $1 for a foot of concrete, we're paying $1 for a foot of concrete, regardless of the conditions. if we delay the contract, we pay what's called extended overhead so they're kind of staying in business on this project longer than anticipated. they're paying for their staff, their trailer, their insurance and bonding, so we do
5:06 pm
compensate them for that on a per day basis to the extent that the delays, we have determined, our are responsibility. to the extent that the delays are their responsibility, we don't compensate them for that. so we pay for the extended overhead for our part of the delay, and any scope additions we ask for, we pay for. i believe for the green yard, 10.4, there are things that we added after the bid to the contract based on feedback from our transit operations folks as the project was happening that would make the ultimate redoing of the yard work better for them, but that costs both time and money. and we thought at the time that the decision was a good decision to make in order to get the maximum benefit from the project since this is the kind of thing we do once in a generation, building a rail yard. >> i think the final question
5:07 pm
with that, with the extended overhead, how do we -- >> it's a bid amount. so in their bid, when they submit it up front, it'll say it's x amount per day of extended overhead. what we're determining is the culpablity is in the delays. >> thank you, director. anymore questions on that? and i believe director reiskin, two things. these things go through -- it's not a change management board. what do you -- the contract, the overseeing body that looks at these contract changes before they come to us, correct? >> so the central subway, which is one of the contracts has a change management board. the other -- the rest of these projects don't, so it's just these internal processes within the agency. we do have a transportation capital committee that approves
5:08 pm
budget and schedule changes, so it would go through that process, but they're not, at a technical level, looking at it the way a change management board does. we have a new system in place that allows us to track every project in real-time with regard to schedule and budget. i actually met with some of our capital folks today to review all the projects that are showing not meeting their substantial completion date, and it's something we do every month so we can try to look for opportunities to bring that schedule back or at least understand if there's a legitimate reason for the delay. so we're trying to address these, so we do have the means now to track them that we didn't have in the past, and then, we have kind of business
5:09 pm
processes in place within the agency to try to find what support we can give, say, to a project manager to get a project back on track or if we have an issue with an external entity, like, a utility, we'll try to reach out to make sure we're keeping these projects on schedule to the greatest extent possible. >> so these are surprises to the contract group or the group tracking them, they see these modifications coming up on the project who ahorizon? >> correct. >> director, thank you. any further questions? >> are we expecting that these contract amendments will continue to materialize for the future projects? >> so like i said, we're trying our best to incorporate more realistic schedules, to anticipate as best we can the
5:10 pm
level of unforeseen conditions that we might see and cost escalation that we'll see, but i will say that many of the projects that are listed in the c.i.p. are at a very early stage of development, so for the new projects, we've not gone out and dug holes in the ground to see where the utilities are. there will be refinements to the budgets that you see in the c.i.p. today, but we've put forth to our understanding the best c.i.p. and our understanding of what the budget and schedule will be. there will always be changed in contract and that's what the schedule and budget contingency is for. we shouldn't be having projects
5:11 pm
that are, like, 10.4, that are adding $5 million to a $30-something million project. >> i did have questions related to her questions. >> sure. >> i know that other agencies within the city from done contracts that basically provide a reward for finishing on time on budget. do we do that -- like, is that something that we do? >> there's been some -- there's been various experience with -- around the city with doing that. i think the one where we tried, we had no takers, so there is a way to do it within the existing administrative code, where you can essentially snent
5:12 pm
vi -- incentivize a contract. there's a limited number of contractors, and they're spread really thin, and as we're pushing them to do things quickly, they're unable. so as we're awarding contracts, they're asking us not to issue the permit as quickly as possible because that starts the clock. i did say in compensating them in overages that are our fall, if they're delays that are their fault, that they can owe money back to us. they're very reluctant to offer into more aggressive schedules given how much work they have and how spread out their work crews are. we haven't had much success with that. in a different economy, it might work better. these are almost all designed
5:13 pm
to build, construction contracts. there are other ways to do work or to deliver contracts or contracting methods that might give more flexibility in those incentives, but we've not found in this environment they've been very effective. >> all right. since we have severed this item, do i have any public comment on agenda items 10.4, 5, 6, and 7? mr. winer? >> herbert winer. without really knowing the intricacies of contracts, you know, you talk about contractors having the work spread out, does that mean that they're working on two, three, four, or five projects at the same time? i really think that you should
5:14 pm
get more of a commitment with guaranteeing the work done in a certain period of time with penalties if they do do it in that certain period of time. that should be cut in stone. i really think that requires more observation and surveillance. also, what i'm wondering, do no-bid contracts exist with m.t.a.? are they competitive or not? i ask this as a question, not
5:15 pm
as an accusation. so basically, without knowing the intricacies, and just as a broad reaction to this, you know, what are we contracting for? we're putting the city on the hook for for money, and we can't spend it on the buses that we desperately need, so these are just my impressions as a citizen. thank you. >> do i have anymore public comment? if not, public comment is closed. thank you very much. do i have a motion to approve? >> move to asecond. >> -- do i have a second? >> second. >> move and approve. all in favor? opposed? all. motion passed. next item, please. [agenda item read]
5:16 pm
>> season's greetings, director brinkman, members of the board and staff. i'm director of marketing for sfmta. well, it's the end of the year, and it's time for john and myself to present the finding of the 2018 muni ridership survey. this is our annual survey, and it's our primary instrument for measuring and tracking muni customers' experience with our service over time. we've been conducting this survey since 2001, and one of the powers of this survey is its consistency in just monitoring what our customers care about over long intervals of time. the survey helps inform us on how muni is performing from a customer peb sprspective and ie
5:17 pm
programs that we're implementing over time from the needs of our customers. we've seen growth in the sfgs of the survey due to what -- service of the survey due to what this board has been approving over time, significant investments in approximate the system. this year, as you may know, we saw something different, and i want to tell you a little bit about this. so because this is a tracking survey, we do consistently -- we make every effort to field it at the same time every year, and that time is typically the summer. so this year, the muni rider survey was conducted from july to august, and as you may recall, this was a real challenging time for the muni system? we had the twin peaks tunnel project in effect? there was also a pretty
5:18 pm
significant operator shortage that was having impacts across the system, and there were a number of training initiatives that were under way to make sure that our staff could operate the vehicles and some of the other systems that are in place, so there were quite a few things going on during this period of time, and given the timing of the survey, we're not surprise t surprised at all that we did see a drop, a change in customer satisfaction. i think we also learned something in this survey, which is how sensitive our customers actually are to changes in the system. so we know that they value frequency and reliability above anything else, and any change to that will show up almost immediately in the data in this survey. so what we observed were what customers were telling us. we observed this in the last
5:19 pm
half of the year, and it's something that you've already seen us start to address through the 90-day muni improvement plan, so that plan was presented to you at the last meeting, and that is the way that we have been working in a very focused and concerted way to address the concerns that you're going to see in the survey data that we're presenting to you this afternoon. we do hope that as the muni gets under way -- the second part of it, i should say, keeps the focus that the members of our agency and other teams are putting to move -- move our performance forward, that the effects of that work will show up in next year's survey. it won't necessarily, we believe, show up in this
5:20 pm
survey, but we hope it will come back in the coming years. i do want to mention something briefly, and those are the positive things that we saw in this year's survey. so one, you'll see, when john presents the data, is that our customers are prepaying more instead of using cash, which helps to speed up the system. and additionally, i want to point out some branding aspects. awareness of the sfmta has increased quite dramatically over the last couple of years, and we believe that's due in part to some of the branding work that we've done to improve the branding marks of the agency. i'll stop there with some of the preamble remarks, and i want to ask john to come up and present the actual survey data to you? we hired a local research firm
5:21 pm
in san francisco. they are a certified local business enterprise, l.b.e. they've been working with the sfmta and other transportation organizations across the bay area for different research projects. they've done the alter boarding survey, state of cycling, etc. so i'm going to turn it over to john to talk about that, and afterwards, we're both happy to take any questions that you have. >> thank you. good to see you. >> thank you. thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. i'm going to be going over key findings of the rider survey. first, i'll give you an introduction in terms of how the survey was done, and then, we'll go through top-level findings is what you'll see in this presentation. there will be a full report which will have additional details, and then an
5:22 pm
opportunity for questions at the end. we are a local firm, we have been in the city for over 40 years. we do a lot of transportation-related surveys of this time, so we have a lot of experience in this space. here is the methodology of the survey itself, so the survey was a telephone interview. it was conducted in july and august of this year, and that is consistent with what we've done over the last few years, conducting at the same time period. we do do the interview with muni riders, so anybody who has ridden muni in last six months would qualify for the survey, so we get a cross section of people who ride it every day and those who ride it infrequently. sample size is 600 completed interviews, which is a substantial sample size. you'll see a lot of city surveys that are quoted on, which you'll see it's a sample
5:23 pm
size about that size. margin of error on that sample size is plus or minus 3.9%. [please stand by]
5:24 pm
we had 75% who used clipper when you combine the products. the cash was 18%. candice mentioned it is a drop. it is a significant drop from last year 27% that is a big drop in the usage of cash on the system itself. the other category would be things like lifeline and the mobile as well as paper
5:25 pm
products. why cash? among folks who said they used cash as the primary way to pay for muni. we asked why. the reason people gave the most was they just simply prefer to pay as they ride. it is a preference. there are some other reasons which people gave, when you look at this chart and see 60% as the reason thanks is the key. there are other reasons as well. we also asked the question about walking a long question -- longer distance if it would reduce travel time. we have asked this in the past as well. when you look overall, percentage is high. over six in 10 said they would be willing to do that. one thing that is important when you look at the rider groups, there are big differences.
5:26 pm
one is when you look at disabled riders, it slips. when you look at disabled you have about a third who say yes, two-thirds would not be willing. this is a good question, important to know. which is when we look at different groups of riders is critically important. this is the meat of the survey. overall satisfaction which i will have several slides on and specific questions about specific attributes of muni. overall satisfaction. when you look at this question and combine the ratings. 63% rated muni excellent or good overall in 2018. 29% said fair.
5:27 pm
8% said poor. making the comparison to previous years, this overall rating has definitely dropped. when you look at last year, it was 70% when you combine the excellent and good, you drop to 63%. 7% drop in the survey is a significant drop, a big drop in a year. remaining on that overall satisfaction you can look at the trending chart which shows each year back to 2001 the excellent and good rating on the overall satisfaction rating. we have rich data. this has been asked many years. you see the drop to 63%. the previous two years at 70%. i will mention it is a drop this year. there is context in terms of looking where the ratings were through the years.
5:28 pm
this is not the lowest rating. when you go back a few years it was in the 60s and 50s as well. this gives context of the rating since the beginning since the survey was done. we also -- this is the same overall satisfaction question. this is useful. when you look at the rider gaaps, for example people who use muni less often are more satisfied. they are happier. this is not a surprise. those who use it every day see the warts and see it more closely. i think it is good to know this from an agency perspective. additionally when you look at the service types. rapid rail users are 70% say excellent or good. they are a good bit higher than
5:29 pm
other users. higher than regular bus and quite a bit higher than rapid rail users. it is more dramatic this year and tunnel closures and those situations this year may have contributed to the greater disparity among these service type users. look at income level. it is a mixed bag. you look at overall satisfaction. your riders with a lower income level may be happier. look at the poor rating. it is a mix. not a straight line like service type users and frequency of use users. we also looked at it by area of the city. we base this on where people live, home zip code and the overall satisfaction rating combining excellent or good.
5:30 pm
you can see the southeast area of the city has the highest satisfaction based on zip code. west side is lower. tunnel work was going on. you can see that area in the bottom left as lowest rating. tunnel work was mentioned. we did look at this and analyze this in more detail to see the impact that it did have on the overall satisfaction. what this shows is the same rating comparing to last year. we talked as the overall being 63% satisfied in 2018 versus 70% last year, 7% drop. if you look at the routes affected biotope el work the people that -- tunnel work. we saw a more dramatic drop. if we look at those routes they
5:31 pm
dropped 9%. taking out that whole group and saying let's look at routes not affected, you can see a drop of 5% in the overall rating among the other routes. could be a variety of reasons, not just one segment which rated muni lower. there is a combination of things. we also asked an open-ended question. we took down what the respondents said rather than checking a box on the rating. what aspects of muni would you mastlike to see improved. these were verbatim responses in the different categories. more frequent 24%. better on time 20%, vehicle station cleanliness. the rankings of the first three are similar to last year. higher in terms of 24%. it was 19% more frequent
5:32 pm
service last year. 20% better on time performance is increase. people are saying this more often for the 2018 survey. better security safety from crime didn't show up on this top seven list last time it is is there but higher in the 2018 survey. in addition to overall satisfaction we asked about specific aspects of muni. we asked them to rate the operator helpfulness, accurate arrival, frequency of service. comparison between previous years and 2018. you will see a few that had increases or slight increases, including trips take a reasonable amount of time, navigating road construction, communication with riders. there is a slight increase on
5:33 pm
those. you see big drops on some of the rating aspects or aspects that have a very high correlation with satisfaction. frequency of service and on time performance. those are big drops. on the next slide they corel late highly. when you see the drop there they hit the overall satisfaction one hard. i will point out on the top of the list accessibility for persons with disabilities rates quite highly. operator driver helpfulness is second on the list in terms of percentage who rated it excellent or good followed by trips take a reasonable amount of time. this next chart is a chart this seeks to sort of look at those same at tributes on the previous page and says which ones are
5:34 pm
most important in terms of driving overall satisfaction. in terms of impacting overall satisfaction? when you look at the ones on the top. as you move up on the chart those are the ones that you would consider more important or have a greater impact on overall satisfaction. looking at the top of the chart, reliability and frequency of service have the biggest impact. this is not a surprise. when i showed this to another transit agency, those are the ones coming up. you saw a drop to the right on the chart or dots to the right is a higher rating. to the left it is lower rating. when we looked at this for 2017 they have gone left. they are lower. still just as important to riders. that is why you see the drop in satisfaction. another one in the chart which
5:35 pm
there was movement on in 2018 is the trips take a reasonable amount of time. that is up there in terms of importance and in terms of correlation of satisfaction. it is not circled because it does not have a negative impact on satisfaction. it is rating well. it is worth lookin looking at t. if it is that important to riders, you need to continue to consider it when things are decided on. that is the key one for the riders. at this point it is one of the top flee in terms of importance -- top three in terms of importance. they asked the question also about awareness of sfnta. this is asked for the past five years. in general how many are you with
5:36 pm
the mathe sfmta? what we have seen in the last couple years is there is considerable movement on that in terms of awareness of who sfmta is and now it jumps to 60%. there is a greatter awareness in terms of what you are and what you do. we have been asking a question alternatives to muni for the past two years. this does not go too far back but significant movement and change compared to previous years. think about the last muni trip. muni was not available how would you get where you needed to go? what you are seeing there is 44%
5:37 pm
are saying they would have used a ride-hailing service, a very, very large number. when you compare to last year, that is a 10% jump. that is a big jump in a year for any question like this. looking at other responses, use other transit such a bart, walk or ride a bicycle, not a lot of movement. looking at the bottom of the chart with a decrease, drive alone. that is down 4%. next get a ride also decreased. definite movement for alternatives people are considering. among those who said ride hail on the last chart i showed you, we asked them why? it is speed, door-to-door, not having to wait. the top three there sort of
5:38 pm
paint the picture in terms of what people are mentioning largely. there are other reasons, the top three are that point to point speed to get me there quickly are the ones that resonate the most. you finally, when i mentioned this at the beginning a one question survey among those who didn't use muni, this is the response. all the others were for the muni users, what would be barriers? main reason you don't use muni more? this is useful because it gives a lot of reasons people give. i workout side the city. not a lot you can do about the. responses are all over the place. it is nice when you see one
5:39 pm
thing to do. we did that and we can bring them in. there are a number of things. look at those to see where can we use that to bring in new riders, but it isn't a really clear picture in terms of one or two things standing out among the rest of them. with that, that concludes the presentation. i am open to questions. >> thank you very much. it is enlightening to have the years of data stacked up. directors, comments? director borden. >> you said you do that for other agencies. how are we tracking based on other clients? >> the surveys are all different. the question is not asked the same. it is difficult to compare muni to caltran. it is a completely different service.
5:40 pm
there are survey results published some we have done and others have done. we are happy to pull that together. i would caution about trying to do apples to apples. it is really a different service or type of service. if it would be useful we can pull together the results from satisfaction surveys done with other agencies. be careful. >> my main question worry lated to everyone is experiencing levels of traffic. to what degree that is impacting satisfaction not just for us but other agencies would be interesting. >> i think that is interesting. there might be something to that worth looking at the trending more so than comparing percentages. that could be done. >> in areas where car usage is higher how the use of ride
5:41 pm
shares or taxis compares to that trend as well, whether it is a problem, how it is growing in the other areas would be interesting to know those two facts specifically. >> that one i think there is data on as well. we can look at that. >> thank you. i will note i think that barrier to muni we can call that director borden. you asked a year or two for that question. that is helpful. any questions, comments? >> one question. how did you identify the population of muni riders? >> we used the random digit sample and called. we told them what they were doing if they were a user in the past six months we did the survey. if they were a muni employee
5:42 pm
they didn't qualify. if they used it in the last six months. >> director torres, comments, questions. >> i want to say this is really interesting and thank you. it is so helpful to see this. i will have to retrain myself. for the last two years i have been able to say our riders who rate us good or excellent are 70%. i will have to retrain myself to say 63%. it will give us a goal. it makes sense we did this during the tunnel shut down. this was the biggest challenge. we got a measure of the impact on the ridership with that. a couple things i would like to call out. i am pleased to see the cash use is down from what was it 26% paying cash down to 18% paying cash? that shows we have done good work getting the message out.
5:43 pm
paying cost is going to cost more. i am pleased to see movement on that. the other thing to call out is the rapid bus lines have the 70% good or excellent service rating. the things people have called out why they like muni and what makes muni good or excellent to them, i feel like those are only things we can do on the rapid line. a lot of things we have done to make people like the muni route are not thinks we can do on the community lines or smaller lines. it does involve stop removals or why there is stop facing and red transit lanes. that is a challenge to get the riders on the small community lines up to that same level of happiness with us. i am sorry that wasn't phrased
5:44 pm
as a question, was it? >> it is consistent. from research we have seen the rapid line, people are on the top. it is more dramatic this year compared to real. >> thank you very much. we will move to public comment now. thank you for the presentation. do i have members of the public. >> we have one approaching. >> herbert weaner. i would have liked to have been called for the survey. one thing i notices is one question is if the travel time would be reduced if there would be if you could walk a longer distance and reduce the travel time, would you approval it? actually walking a longer
5:45 pm
distance doesn't reduce the travel time. in the meantime buses pass by you as you walk to the bus stop. there is a drop in satisfaction, and that is definitely significant because small percentages mean more people are dissatisfied. also, people who are mentality impaired are significant in this because mentality impaired people should be taking public transportation and not be driving. that is a bee >> ben: fit to everyone, -- that is a benefit to everyone. there should be a survey how do people feel about the elimination of bus stops, alteration of bus stops and
5:46 pm
discontinue youance of -- discontinue youance of bus routes and the location of where people live. do they live in a hilly area that requires more walking to access the bus stop? how does it affect them physically? these are things i would like to see in the next survey. these are the comments i have to make. i like what was presented, but it could be more comprehensive. >> any more public comment? public comment is closed. we will move on. thank you again. we really appreciate coming back every year. it is super-helpful. thank you. >> item 12. adopting the fy2019-2023 capital improvement program totaling $3 billion for approximately 267 projects within 11 programs including transit reliabilities,
5:47 pm
street safety, state of good repair, facilities, taxi, system safety and accessibility and approving revisions to the fy2019 and fy2020 capital budget. >> good afternoon. i am leo levinson the new director of finance and new technology. i am so new i can't take credit for the next agenda item. i am proud of the staff that worked on this important project. this is our $3 billion capital program over the next five years, incorporating 266 projects, all of great importance to the people of san francisco. i would like to introduce monique webster, head of capital planning and tim who is the head of the financial planning and
5:48 pm
analysis section to present this plan. >> thank you. nice to see you. >> good afternoon, madam chair, directors, members of the public. i am the manager of financial planning analysis. i am here to print the 19 to 23 capital improvement program. what is the program? a plan of projects the sfmta plans to deliver in the next five years for full fund you go for projects and helps allow the schedules. there are three goals.
5:49 pm
first vision zero, transit first and the third is state of good repair. keeping the assets including the feet facilities and rail in good repair. to be include in the cip it has to be part of the 20 year plan. it goes throughout reach then it goes from project managers to our team to align funding from various projects to be included in the five year cip. the cip including $3 billion in revenue for 266 projects. how does that compare to the last cip two years ago? this is a slight drop from $3.4 billion to $3.0 billion that had to do with projects finishing including central
5:50 pm
subway you. in terms of the makeup of the cip. the percentage point difference has changes from prior cip. that has to do with measure three which is a revenue source. there is a large portion of our giobond for the $500 million transportation won. you will see a shift as compared to prior cip cycles. it does include revenue assumptions. we anticipate 160 from three and $7.5 million per year from the ride hail talks. $36 million from potential and new ballot measure all starting in the cip to represent some of
5:51 pm
the revenue. one i should mention is $38 million windfall. that revenue is not included in the cip because we heard about it later than what we could include as part of this. we do anticipate bringing that back to the board of supervisors as part of the supplemental appropriations to get the money available to use. next slide shows details of the revenue sources by different capital programs. you can see the full detail on the slide in terms how the revenue is divided between the programs. next slides highlight the major projects in the cip. central subway is scheduled to finish. it also includes did you large replacement for the motor coach
5:52 pm
fleets as well as other ongoing projects in the streets program. i will address your questions if you have specific questions. >> thank you. >> so as part of this calendar we include update to the two year capital budget. adjusting from 2019 down and add justing the fy2020 budget slightly down also. the significant projects that happened. the big ones where we anticipated getting a large cap and trade grant from the cap-and-trade program. we got a lot less than expected. that was a big reason why it went slightly down. we made revenue adjustments to be more conservatives with the
5:53 pm
five year cip. i will take questions. thank you for your time. >> you move chair brinkman. she is in the back. i will take over. board members, are there questions. >> you adjusted down. are those in consideration of a lot of prognosis the economy is going to go in a downward spiral soon so we have overall tax and other revenues. is that the reason why or were there other factors as well? >> no, it is not based on projections of an economic down turn. in determining of revenue through the city, through the general fund including prop b we use projections from city controller's office. they have explored somewhat
5:54 pm
recession scenarios might look like. they have not changed projections. the five year plan from the city from which our numbers derive are not based on recession scenario. there was a slide that high late you had the big grant that we thought we were getting a lot more from the state than we did. we are trying to be conservative about the less certain revenues. not because of economic uncertainty because we don't want to commit ourselves to projects with revenues that are less certain. we have perspective revenues in there. the change in the two year budget from april to now is newer information about somewhat revenues are likely available in that two year period versus what we thought when we brought it to
5:55 pm
you in april. >> there could be a revision at another time? >> some of these are well established, others are projections. >> we have a process for priority should that happen. when revenues were less we helped figure out where the priorities were. >> the revised two year capital budget is our proposal. we have gone through that internally. this reflects how to live with the smaller amount of revenues. some repriortization. some are referred to rather years. >> a further reduction would we use this as a guide? would punishes age go smaller? >> it depends. some are scalable, some are not. it is reevaluating the program.
5:56 pm
there are projects underway. it is ones expect aren't underway or what we would need to defer to a future year. >> in regards to you mentioned this does not include the wind fall money we are anticipating. how would we allocate this based porn what we have here? >> as tim said this doesn't include windfall. this was put together before the windfall became appainter. i will bring a recommendation to the board that will recommend the use of those revenues to accelerate the replacement of light rail vehicles. we brought you an furringsal item on that. the customer survey showed where did you weak point was.
5:57 pm
did you most important thing to do is get out cars out and new cars in sooner. there will be a met cost to doing that. that is what i will be proposing. we will have to go to the board of supervisors to appropriate those funds. they were unexpected. before going to the board of supervisors, we will come back through this board. >> director aiken. >> it struck me we have a vision zero goal of eliminating fatalities in 2024. this is th the window to get us there. if it is not here to achieve vision zero, i wonder. how do we achieve that goal? are we getting all the way there in terms of addressing the
5:58 pm
streets and high injury network through this plan? i see tom jumping out. >> to tom mic mcguire. we are addressing by the end of this capital plan cycle we will not have addressed every single street. if you go back to 2014 when we adopted the commitment. we calculated over 80% of the streets will have received one if not multiple engineering treatments. there is enforcement, education, policy change. i know at the board workshop in january we will ahead a strategic conversation about things board and staff can do to make that final push to zero. >> it is not necessarily
5:59 pm
additional? it ask there a funding gap? is this your dream plan or would there be more in here or not a matter of funding? policy interventions. >> if we look back at the first almost five years. we have done per capita per any measure. i would say we have almost certainly invested more in zero engineering than any city in the country. i think the amount of work the board has done this fall ask a good indication. all of the streets reflect how aggressive you have been there. the other areas like enforcement and education and policies to the policy of safety, no low hanging fruit left. those are areas that demand more investment. we are talking to you about that
6:00 pm
in january. >> thank you. >> directors. do i have any other questions or comments? >> a couple more questions? does anyone else have more? >> i saw the better market street funding removed from the plan. i want to hear if there is a plan to restore that. two more quick questions? how do we happy the future? if we look at 2012. uber and lyft didn't exist. how does this anticipate the future. a tbd measure four november 2020 on the ballot. i wonder if you can speak to what that likely funding source is going to be. >> the tbd funding measure. cip has a rule where projects have to be included at 90% funding or more there. are a list of

10 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on