Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  April 12, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT

11:00 am
11:01 am
welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority board. our clerk is mr. cantinia. would you please call the roll. [roll call] >> we have quorum. >> commissioner brown and commissioner fewer will be joining us late. can i please have a motion
11:02 am
to excuse them until their arrival. and we will take that without objection. can you please call the next item? >> item 2, the citizens' advisory report. >> good morning. i am john larsen, chair of the citizens advisory committee, and i'm here to report on the march 27th meeting of the c.a.c. item five, the allocation of approximately $60 million for light rail vehicle procurement created a great deal of discussion among the members, specifically the new seating design of the light rail vehicles, as well as access for people with mobility issues. this was a significant issue shared through public comment, accompanied by request that the c.a.c. not recommend this allocation until the design concerns were better addressed.
11:03 am
c.a.c. staff said the design of the l.r.t.s are being ordered, as well as retrofitting those who already been ordered. the design option, installing some forward and backward-facing seating, longer straps, and adjusting the location of poles are to be presented to the board prior to the phase 2 procurement that this allocation helps fund. c.a.c. members were also concerned about the fact that higher capacity, three-car trains were possible, the automatic control system and infrastructure changes that could achieve this were not done and had no roll-out date. in general, the members were suppor supportive of the schedule for the replacement because of the costs that would result from not having two fleets running concurrently. the c.a.c. eventually representativeerecommended amend approval, with a
11:04 am
presentation at the next meeting of the c.a.c., with the modifications, anticipated to be approved by the board at its april meeting. i believe you'll be hearing more about this today from m.t.a. staff. this item was approved with nine yeas and two ab abstentions. $$1.2 million for five requests, they inquired if t.n.c.s would be contributing to the changes for a passenger loading zone as part of the pier 39's complete improvements. they said they would not be funding any portion of the project, and noted that the loading zone in the diagram was a conceptional design. even so, because of obstructions to having loading zones to benefit
11:05 am
the companies who are not paying for these ap improvements, the c.a.c. severed the item for funding that fisherman's wharwharf pier 39. the other four requests were approved unanimously. the c.a.c. also heard the update on the cal train modernization program and business plan presented to the board at your march 12th meeting. the c.a.c. had questions about travel time in improvements on the corridor and ridership costs. while appreciating the electrification process and the steepness of the projected ridership curve. when asked if the new train cars would include a dual door to accommodate future high-speed rail platforms, given the unfuture of the high-speed rail service on the peninsula, the staff said the design is still in place because the state's over all goal is to still
11:06 am
provide high-speed rail in the corridor. given that such service may not materialize until the end of the useful life of the first cal train cars, designing a single set of doors for cal train speeds without the high-speed rails might not be prudent. district 8 representative peter cannon, who presented the c.a.c. update to you last month shared that chair peskin, at the board's last meeting, had urged them to look at ways to improve bicycle travel on van ness avenue. and they noticed that the bike facilities on polk lane were recently improved, making it a much preferable and safer alternative to van ness avenue in its current, disrupted state. he wanted me to share that
11:07 am
as the former bicycle program manager, and someone who bikes on both van ness avenue and polk street. he recommends better signage and outreach to formally detour bicyclists off of van ness and on to polk street during the duration of the construction on van ness. bicycle safety on van ness could be examined in parallel to the polk street recommendation. >> chairman: mr. larsen, was that conveyed to kate and peter at s.m.t.a.? >> yes. this was during their presentation. actually, that completes my report. and if you have any other questions. >> chairman: thank you for that very furrow report and the comments on items five and six that a number of us have questions about, which we'll hear when we get to those items. thank you your advice and the committee's advice on
11:08 am
that. are there any questions for mr. larsen from members of the t.a.? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. clerk, could you please read the next item. >> item four, state and federal legislation update. this is an action item. >> chairman: okay, is there any -- you have the minutes? >> item three, approve the march 19, 2019, meeting. >> chairman: any public comment on the minutes of march 19? seeing none, the comments are closed. is there a motion by mr. yee, and seconded my commissioner mar. >> on item three, commissioner brown? >[roll call]
11:09 am
>> we have approval. >> chairman: item four has been called. >> good morning, amber crab, public manager for the transportation authority. the item before you is five positions recommended for action. the first is assembly bill 1605, which is assembly member team's legislation he is sponsoring on our behalf to authorize the city to implement a pricing and reservation program on the cricket part of lum bard, an lombard, at is set for hearing on april 22nd. two support positions, the first on assembly bill 40, which is assembly member team's bill, to require that all new vehicles sold
11:10 am
in the state be electric b.currently the state has enacted a transportation program, a grant program, that is split 50/50 between the state-wide competitive program and then a program that is administered by formula by local regions and small and rural jurisdictions. currently it funds bike and pet projects, and we have found that over the years the state-wide competitive program to be somewhat uneven at best. for example, in the last $200 million round of funding, the bay area received two grants across the whole state. so the recommended change in the distribution would be to direct 75% of the funds to regional programs, 15% to small and rural programs, and then maintain the statewide program at 10%. recommending to opposed
11:11 am
positions. the first is assembly bill 553, and assembly bill 1167, and both are meant to kill the high-speed rail program, either by ceasing sale of bonds or the cap and trade appropriations. and then there are two bills included as a watch on the first table. these are just for information purposes and no action is needed. the first is a assembly bill 1568 by assembly member mccarty, and this would withhold senate bill one if the local jurisdictions fail to meet their housing production charges. and senate bill 5 would establish a program to allow local jurisdictions to reduce its annual educational revenue augmentation funds and redirect those funds to
11:12 am
affordable housing, workforce housing, and related infrastructure. and finally, there are two bills included just with updates that we've already taken positions on. the first is senate bill 59. senator allen, this would require the state to establish autonomous vehicle standards and per commissioner yee's direction, we've been working with the author to try to incorporate vision zero goals into that bill, and she has been receptive to our conversations. finally, there is an update on senate bill 50, which this body has taken a watch position on. this -- i know there are ongoing conversations at the board of supervisors' meetings, with the board moving forth an opposed and less amended position. this included information for members of the public that may be getting their information through this body. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> chairman: thank you, ms. crab.
11:13 am
are there any questions for staff? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move the resolution adopting the support and opposed positions as set forth by ms. crab, made by commissioner brown. is there a second? second by commissioner stefani, on that a roll call. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> chairman: thank you. next item please. >> item five, allocated approximately $62.7 million. $62.7 million for rail procurement, and this is
11:14 am
an action item. >> i'm the deputy director for policy and programming. i'm joined for my presentation by julie kerbomb, the director of transit. i'm pleased to present this item to you this morning. first i wanted to give you a little bit of context going into the allocation request discussion. and this is for sales tax allocation, nearly $63 million for the replacement of light rail vehicles. we know that purchasing new muni vehicles is the single most important thing that the t.a. does to directly improve transit service for the riding public. and that is why this vehicle's category is the largest category improper "k," with nearly $462 million available for the road placement vehicles. we love to show this chart because it shows the fleet
11:15 am
being replaced with prop "k" funds, and the role that we're playing and you are playing in making sure these new vehicles are on the street as soon as possible. the focus for the present days today is the on the light vehicle replacement, and there are a total of 68 expansion vehicles, and 151 replacement vehicles, which totals the 219 vehicles that will be procured from seaman's over the next few years. so the request today is to fund a portion of the $1.1 billion contract. we have already approved -- or you have already approved prop "k" funds, so the total will be nearly $194 million of the total plan from the sales tax. the prop "k" funds you're allocating today is primarily for replacement vehicles. there is a small amount of money, about $100,000 that will provide the warranty. m.t.a. reached out to the metropolitan transportation commission about a year ago, and also
11:16 am
to the transportation authority, to explore funding the -- or procuring these vehicles at an accelerated schedule. there was a funding gap that existed at that point in time. and whether there was an accelerated schedule or not, we have worked with m.t.a. to fill that funding gap, and also with m.t. c., and we also have a full funding plan for the accelerated schedule because it would have required hoa more cash and possibly financing. with the good news about one of the funding sources, that the litigation on regional measure three funds has been dismissed, and that is part of the funding plan for the vehicles, so you'll see the discussion later in the presentation, that the portion of the funding plan that would have needed to have been financed if arm three was not available in time, is looking positive. in the five-year prioritization program that were adopted by the
11:17 am
board last fall, you have approved the funding for the accelerated schedule, so the cash flow needed to advance these vehicles sooner is already adopted. and there were also some -- recognizing that as part of the programming process, or making those funds available, that this is a lot of money, and recognizing that there are significant costs or the potential for significant costs involved in the accelerated schedule, there were several conditions that were placed on to the funds as a prerequisite of allocation, and that is what is before you today. this is to provide transparency and to support informed decision-making. the m.t.a. is prepared to present today on the cost analysis of the early procurement, as well as the schedule and the scope, and other features m.t.a. has to obtain the prop "k" funds. and they're already under contract, but the notice to proceed is the green light to start the
11:18 am
assembly of the vehicles, and that is what is before you today. and the m.t.a. has confirmed that all of the funds are committed to the project. and we have materials in your packet that are attached to this agenda item that describe all of the different funding sources that are available. we are recommending the allocation with conditions that over the next several years, that we will have quarterly meetings with m.t.c., m.t.a., and the transportation authority, to check in on the scope and the schedule and the financing, if there is anything that is needed, and the funding plan for the project. there are some strategic plan amendments to make the funds available this fiscal year, instead of next fiscal year, and to maintain the vehicles. jewel keshbomb will come up and address now, and she is prepared to address some of the design schemes that are for the
11:19 am
replacement, and part of the retrofit as part of the vehicles already on the street. with that, i'll invite julie up. >> chairman: and you, i assume, are in receipt of the same communications that the members of this body are from muni and others? >> yes, we are. >> chairman: thank you. >> julie kershbomb, i'm proud to be here today to talk about the l.r.v. 4s. i think we're at an exciting time. we purchased, or are in the process of purchasing the first 68 vehicles. very unique for a procurement of this scale. but all 68 of the first vehicles are expansion. and that's because, as you know, our city is growing. our demand for transit is growing, and our subway
11:20 am
and rail service is incredibly crowded. so having more trains, having longer trains, is facilitated by this first phase of work. as we approach this train, we collected a lot of feedback from our costumers, including about a very large rider survey in advance of the procurement. and what we heard were key priorities, and what we've really achieved with this vehicle are a number of objectives. it is a lighter vehicle, which makes it much quieter as it travels through neighborhoods. it has improved interior design, so it is much easier to load in and out large groups of costumers. and in particular, where we've been getting a lot of positive feedback is our ability to board costumers who use wheelchairs. it also has upgraded passenger information,
11:21 am
including a diagram that explains where the next stops are, and gives people more way-finding information as they travel through the system. from a maintenance perspective, it has much more reliable systems. and so that will mean fewer breakdowns and less costs spending repairing the vehicle. where we have gotten feedback that we have not gotten it right relates to the interior of the vehicle. and some of the comments that you referenced. after i talk through some of the benefits we see to accelerating this project, i'm also going to share with you the design improvements that we'll be adding to phase 2 of this work. so what we are recommending is that we accelerate the schedule. the reason -- and what we would do is, we would get the new vehicles in phase 2 six months early and we would shave off about 18
11:22 am
months at the end, which means that instead of our grade of having to limp along up to seven, seven and a half years, we would start retiring them as early as three years, and wouldn't have to keep them more than six. as you know from our presentation that i gave on the bradas, they're really on their final stretch. so not having them any longer than we need to is going to significantly improve service across the system. and in particular, because all of our rail systems share a single subway, it will reduce breakdowns in the subway, where we're particularly vulnerable to major customer inconveniences. so for me, really, the biggest benefit is the risk that this minimizes on the bradas.
11:23 am
not only are we experiencing failures on the bradas, but the parts are becoming more and more obsolete, and it is becoming more and more challenging to replace them. but there is also a lot of maintenance efficiencies associated with the newer vehicles that we want to tap into sooner. so, for example, we do the first major preventive maintenance on the bradas at 10,000 miles. so in the same way that you replace, or your encouraged to replace your oil in your own car every 3,000 miles, we do a significant inspection of our vehicles at 10,000 miles. and we replace things that have potential failures, and we also do adjustments and other things like that. on the bradas, that currently takes about 56 person hours to do the 10,000 "k." just as a point of
11:24 am
reference, the l.r.v. 4s, we do a similar inspection at 11,000 miles, based on the manufacturer's recommendations, and it takes 16 person hours. so it is a significant reduction in our maintenance program, which is important because we have 68 additional vehicles. and then it also -- there is also some operational efficiencies, reducing the amount of time we have two fleets, and keeping operators available on two fleets has added to our training program for new operators, and things like that. there are costs, as well, associated with the acceleration. the most concrete is that seaman's will be building the car shells at a second location. that needs about $20 million to $30 million of enhancements to be able to support that work.
11:25 am
there is also some costs associated with advancing the prop "k" funds, which you all considered when you developed the strategic plan for the prop "k" expenditure plan. and i indicated we had a place holder for a potential cost associated with the arm three funds not coming through, but we're very excited that all indications are that that worked and those funds will proceed and be available. so this is just a snapshot of the overall funding picture for the program. and then shifting gears now to the enhancement portion of it, we are, i think, at an interesting point in the project. the first 68 vehicles, 55 of them are here. the remainder will be here by early fall. so we have an opportunity,
11:26 am
as we consider phase 2, to learn from those vehicles and to make sure that we're making improvements based on what we've learned. so in addition to looking really carefully at the system performance and the overall goals that we have, we also collected both operator and mechanic feedback, as well as customer feedback. and we got customer feedback from a variety of sources. since the vehicles hit the street, we've been getting feedback in the form of 3-1-1, twitter and letters, but we also conducted an intercept survey because we wanted to try to understand what is a typical customer feeling about the vehicles, and how are they experiencing the ride? and we also did two detailed focus groups. and we took advantage of the fact that we weren't able to deliver train service on third street, but the tracks were still open south of 25th.
11:27 am
so we put focus group costumers on the train, and we were actually able to do the focus group while on the vehicle. we did two focus groups. one was in cantonese, and one in english. and both included seniors with disabilities, and we wanted to understand some of their specialized needs associated with the vehicles. in addition, after we collected all of that feedback and developed options, we shared those options with the m.t.a. board, and our c.a.c., and our advisory committee, to narrow those options. so the first thing that we'll be changing include both operational changes and maintenance changes in the vehicles. and some of the feedback has been really -- we've had a lot of driver input into the vehicles. one example of a change we're making is right now when you look at the dash, there is a lot of buttons
11:28 am
that control the doors. and the operators were concerned when they get to the platforms that are specifically for people with wheelchairs, they wanted to make sure they only opened the front door and not all of the vehicles. so we'll be making that button blue so the operators can look at a quick glance and make sure they're pushing the right button. another example is, there is a securement panel that has been difficult for the maintenance folks to access, and so we're changing the locking mem nism slockingmechanism so they e easily access that piece of the equipment. for the rider survey, as i said, we talked to over 300 costumers, and it was tremendously positive. overall, we -- people that were satisfied out-numbered people that were people that were dissatisfied, four to one.
11:29 am
the areas that we had really strong customer feedback aligned with our original goals. so overwhelming people felt there was plenty of place to stand, that the trains were attractive, that was easy to enter and exit, that the trains were quiet, and that they had plenty of places to stand. where the results were mixed but still at least 50% satisfaction were, the seating is comfortable. i'm comfortable sitting on the benches, and there is plenty of places to sit. this feedback is really what drove the design changes that we're pursuing for phase 2. that feedback was further scens waiteextenuated in the fos groups, where there were, the seats are not comfortable, and more costumers were interested in more hand-holds, and
11:30 am
multi-length hand-holds. we did get some positive feedback, particularly from costumers who ues wheelchairs, on the wider aisles, as well as some recommendations on signage. we also focused in on the feedback from costumers with disabilities, and also costumers who had a shorter stature, much like myself. and what we heard there was just an overwhelming overwhg recommendation that we lower the seats. so the customer updates that we'll be pursuing fall into kind of three broad categories: additional hand-olds, improved seating type, and a changed interior layout. so the first is the additional hand-holds. in addition to following the example that bart has issued, having hand-holds
11:31 am
of multiple lengths, so different folks can use them, we're also going to put an archway across the vehicle so that taller people will have -- will better utilize the interior open space. we're also going to be shifting from the slippery bench--style seatin-style seatia seating that mirrors the seating we have on the buses, so ergonomic seats with the little seat dips. and while this does reduce the kind of official number of seats, we actually think it is not going to reduce the seating capacity because what we're seeing is that with the bench seating without having the dips, which was intended for four people, two or three people are spreading out into it. so having the more defined seat area we think is actually going to lead to more seating use.
11:32 am
we are also lower three of the four seating areas by about two inches, which will match the seating height of the bradas. the reason we are not able to lower the fourth quard quadrant is because the train box, which is how we communicate to the train control system in the subway, is under that seat, and it would require a major redesign of the train. and then for the seating layout, we're recommending a two-tiered approach. putting in double transverse seats, which is shown here in slide 23, requires a significant redesign of the car shell in order to be able to hold the weight of those
11:33 am
extra seats. so that work will commence as soon as we enter into a change-order with seaman's, but it will take a little longer to develop. in the meantime, the first 50 vehicles will be retrofitted to include forward-facing single seats. they also include more expansions because every single seat has a pole that somebody can hold on to. there is also a pole at the entry level, that we've gotten feedback from costumers who use wheelchairs, and also from the mayor's office on disabilities, that is impeding wheelchair access, so we're also in the process of either moving or modifying that pole, and that's something we're working on with the engineering folks. we also intend to retrofit the existing 68 with this first seat conversion.
11:34 am
so the benches will go away fleet-wide. and we'll have the individual seats, and we'll lower the seats, and then we will also add this single, forward-facing seats. what we'll end up with, kind of at the end of phase 2, is 118 vehicles that have lowered seats, individualized seats, and a single row which will help with our capacity and will help maintain the flows. and then we'll have 101 with the double seats, which will provide additional seating capacity. so in terms of next steps, the hard work is und way under y right now to negotiate these change-orders with
11:35 am
seaman's, and to work through some of the final design details. once we have the change-order and the pricing finalized, we'll go to the m.t.a. board for approval, with the first replacement vehicle from phase 2 delivered in december of 2020. and the last one coming in october of 2025. thank you for your time. i'm available to answer any questions you guys have. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner brown? >> yes. julie, how many seats with this layout do you have for, like, seniors and handicapped? what is the percentage? >> um, we are going to -- one of the feedback that we got from the advisory committee and the mayor's office on disabilities, was the desire for additional blue seats. and so that is something that we're going to work through with those groups and increase what we have here. >> because one of the
11:36 am
things i've been seeing when i'm riding the buses, there is much more people -- seniors standing up. even if they don't have something like a cane or wheelchair, a lot of them -- when i've talked to them, they're, like, we're unstable. and so i just think when seniors are one of our fastest growing populations in the city, we should really look at a certain percentage, you know, being able for seniors to use. >> i agree. >> all right. thank you. >> chairman: any other questions or comments from commissioners at this time? all right. why don't we go to public comment. i have, in addition to the written communications that i referenced, and ms. kershbomb spoke to a number of speaker cards, and if you'll line up on your right, my left. robin, eileen, bob fin
11:37 am
findbalm, and edward mason. >> hello, commissioners. good morning. my name is robin cropp, and i had actually written out a two minute talk, but i think i'll just talk to you after hearing the presentations. i want to get to the nitty-gritty of it for me. i know a lot of work is being put in on these new trains, but i got injured on a bench of one of the new trains last summer. my pelvis, back, and spine went out of place. i had to go see my chiropractor. and i'm unable to ride the new train. it can delay my schedule up to 45 minutes. i want you to know the impact of a car with sideways benches. i understand they're going to put in seats, which is a great idea. but i am someone who needs a forward/backward seat. i cannot ride sideways.
11:38 am
i interviewed 100 riders last fall, after i injured, and i interviewed 400 in march after the board meeting. in my first interview of 100, it was half/half. half liked the trains and half had problems. the first statement out of the problem group is they took out half of the seats. people prefer to sit rather than to stand. a lot of the rides are long rides, and we're putting people who are seniors, people tired after work, kids, everybody, to more of a standing situation because they took out half the seats. and my second interviewed group in march -- was that 30 seconds? half liked the trains, and half don't. of the half that don't, they really want the transferred seats. one quarter of them -- one half of them want transverse seats, which means one quarter of the public wants transverse
11:39 am
seats in their feedback to me. we have two groups, seniors and disabled, and able-bodied serious really needing those seats. we have a tremendous number of people not wanting to stand, so i'm really questioning the design of these cars. >> chairman: thank you, robin. next speaker. >> are we using the overhead. eileen boken, long-time district 4 resident. i'm urging the board to continue this item. muni has submitted number of concerns about the seaman's l.r.v.s. the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and the transportation committee has concurred with save muni's concerns. i believe the m.t.a. should first and foremost retrofit the current cars to correct deficiencies before ordering additional cars. ordering additional cars
11:40 am
at this point could create the perception that both the m.t.a. and the m.c.t.are trying to sweep these problems under the carpet. the deficiencies contributes to the seaman's cars being seen as cattle cars. the expressions on the faces of those riding the seaman's cars say it all. even on a sunny day they look gloomy. on a rainy day they look even gloomier. people are being treated like cattle, and they know it. and there was the incident on march 8th where one of the seaman's cars filled with smoke near the monmontgomery station. and engineering features available on seaman's cars in the european union were not incorporated in the san francisco design. one feature is ultra low floor boarding, so that
11:41 am
low-floor boarding would be available system-wide, and not just in the muni metro tunnel. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. mr. findbalm? >> hello, supervisors. i'm bob findbalm. i'm president of safe muni. as our letter has detailed, we are totally unconvinced by the so-called cost-effectiveness analysis. in fact, what that is is just an essay, showing some qualitative aspects of their justification to purchase the vehicles. as any of you who have been in the business sector know, a cost-effective annual says is a nu numerical analysis, outlining the assumptions that are made in their conclusions. what we have is not a cost
11:42 am
effectiveness analysis. but, really, i want to focus on one thing that has not been talked about, and that is the contract provisions that the seaman's vehicles must be able to be coupled into four-car vehicles. that has not been demonstrated. it has not even been referred to by the m.t.a. i have tried, through a public records request, to try to get information about all of the tests of coupling the vehicles, and i have not succeed to date. this is crucial because the only way of really increasing the capacity of the muni metro subway is through longer trains, longer trains. we're now running one- and two-car trains in the subway, and we need to be able to run four-car trains, which is what the subway was originally designed for.
11:43 am
until they can provide that assurance that the seaman's vehicles can be coupled, i think you need to defer this item. thank you. >> chairman: mr. mason? >> >> thank you, commissioners. edward mason. this is a 30-year decision, and the surveys -- a lot of people i spoke with didn't even know they were supposed to go to 91 3-1-1 to make any comments. i feel that the surveys were done online mostly, with the technical community, and there was a large segment of the population that was not familiar with online capability. i think one of the things is, you look at the seaman's spec and it says it will accommodate six people per square metre, but the brada spec said 1.5 square feet per person. so really what you're talking about is a difference of four people
11:44 am
per square meter, about, versus six. so there is more congestion and more crowding of the people in the seaman's cars. so, you know -- and you've got seats in the brada cars, and here you're not going to have transverse seats. so there is this disconnect between what is the capacity. we've never seen a comparison chart of the number seats for the two different types of cars versus the number of standing people. i think that there should be more blue seats, and those seats placed at the doors, just not at the front door of each end. and, also, we need to evaluate the technical issues that are peculiar to the topography of san francisco. there is always a chattering of a stop as it approaches 18thth churchth andchurch, for example. and between 20th and
11:45 am
22nd. so this is a 30-year decision, let's make it right. if there are delays involved, so be it. that's the way life is, unfortunately. again, more blue seats at the doors especially. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, mr. mason. next speaker? are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. ms. kershbalm and our staff, would like to respond to some of the things we just have heard from the public, that this is a many-decades investment and decision, and four people per square meter versus six? >> yeah. i wanted to clarify that we have had c.p. c., who is our regulator, review of both two- and three-car trains. they asked us to come back to them so they could
11:46 am
participate in an operational test, when we're ready to start operating three-car trains. but the vehicles have been thoroughly tested, and for both two- and three-car trains. i also share the excitement for longer and fewer trains in the subway, and that is something that the m.t.a. board has asked us to look at and pursue. just as kind of a point of correction, the forest hill station right now cannot accommodate a four-car train. so our focus right now is on three-car trains as kind of our quickest path to longer trains in the subway. >> chairman: but they can be coupled? >> but they can be coupled, yes. and that's one of the biggest advantages of them over the bradas. the bradas were designed to be coupled but were having so many mechanical issues related to the
11:47 am
train line function, which is how the trains that are coupled communicate with each other, that once we find a pair that works, we don't disconnect it. and that kind of flexibility is what the l.r.v. 4 officers u 4 offers uss vital to any sort of in-service coupling that we might consider. i do agree on supervisor brown and edward mason's recommendation on more blue seats, and we are certainly pursuing that. the bradas have approximately 60 seats, i believe. in this design, the current bench seat, as well as the traverse seats, have about 50 seats. and the single row of seats is closer to about 40 seats. so it is a reduction in seats over the brada, but what we get in exchange is much more efficient
11:48 am
passenger flows and the ability to more quickly board the large groups of people that we're seeing day, day in and day out, in the system. i just also wanted to clarify that there is no -- in all scenarios, we are pursuing some forward-facing seats based on the feedback that we've heard, that for some people, depending on their disability or injuries, the bench just doesn't work. so in all designs, whether it is a single traverse seat or a double traverse seat, there will be a forward/backwards-facing seat option. >> chairman: thank you. to our executive director, anything you would like to add based on what you have hear this morning? >> no. there is some numerical
11:49 am
analysis of the cost benefit of procuring these vehicles at an accelerated schedule. we have reviewed those numbers and find that it is still in the best interest of the public to procure the vehicles at an accelerated schedule. >> chairman: okay. thank you for that recommendation. is there -- are there any additional questions from members? seeing none, is there a motion with with regard to item number five? colleagues? motion made by commissioner mandelman and seconded by commissioner haney. and on that motion, a roll call, please. [roll call]
11:50 am
>> we have first approval. >> chairman: all right. the next item, please. >> item six, allocate approximately $1.3 million in prop "k" sales funds with five requests. this is an action item. >> chairman: mr. reeves? >> my name is eric reeves, and i'm here to present five requests for prop "k" funding this morning. the first request is for the fulton street safety project, the first of three neighborhood transportation improvement program projects in this request. m.t.a. is requesting $82,000 to develop recommendations and conceptual designs for safety and accessability improvements on fulton street between stanley and aplia, bordering golden gate park. this study will build on prior work from s.f.
11:51 am
planning, including the richmond district strategy and the golden gate park edges study, and includes community outreach, and to confirm needs assessment and collect feedback on design proposals. the next request is a request for the frederick clayton traffic calming project, to increase visibility and improve pedestrian safety. they're requesting $175,000 for legislation and approvals, and time design and construction of crosswalk upgrades. we are recommending a multi-phase allocation to avoid loss of district 5 funds that are available in fiscal year '18/'19. and working with the community and the district supervisor's office, will provide the final left of
11:52 am
locations and measures. outreach will be performed between april and september of this year, and all improvements will be completed by next summer. the next request is for construction of pedestrian safety improvements at the elk street at sussex street and north of the intersection. they are requesting $402,000 to improve the north pedestrian crossing of diamond heights boulevard at sussex street by adding a marked crosswalk, rectangular flashing beacons, a new street light and curb ramps. continuing north on diamond heights boulevard, it will reduce speed limits and remove nine parking spaces to improve sight line between drivers and pedestrians. it is adjacent to glen canyon park, and a stairway that provides access to the parks and
11:53 am
recreation center. this allocation fulfills an intent to allocate construction funds approved in fall 2016, when design funds were allocated. the next two requests are for different but adjacent segments, safety projects for embarcadero. they are requesting $ 550,000 for the environmental phase of the embarcadero enhancement project, for protected bike way and pedestrian improvements. ultimately, the project will improve safety, accessability, and comfort for all travellers on these segments. prop "k" funds will support city staff and consultants to do traffic and technical studies, including an historic resources evaluation. this project will advance
11:54 am
preliminary for the entire corridor, based on technical analysis and public outreach. one of the three segments will be chosen to advance through s.f.m. t.a.'s final approval. all three segments, the total construction costs is estimated at $54 million. the final request focuses on a specific segment of the embarcadero, that is north of the previous project, between north point and powell street. >> chairman: i note you have cleaned up the slide and taken out t and c loading zone? >> yes. >> chairman: that should make mr. larsen and his colleagues happy. >> for this request, it is a planning quest of
11:55 am
$175,000 from s.f. m.t.a., to confirm the feasibility of rerouting traffic to make a protected bike way possible on this segment of the embarcadero. it would include reviving serc calculatiocirculation of t9 garage so that one southbound lane vehicle is no longer necessary. design and construction of the project is projected at $2.3 million, which will be funded by prop "k" and prop "b" general funds. as noted by chair peskin, and previously by chair larsen, the c.a.c. was briefed on this item at the march 27th meeting, and this request was severed at the request of one c.a.c. member to avoid creating a passenger-loading zone that would be frequented by transportation network account vehicles. this severed request was not approved at that time.
11:56 am
and that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions and so are project managers at s.f. m.t.a. >> chairman: are there any questions from members? all right. i -- i mean, i think steps that you've taken to address the concerns that were raised are a step in the right direction. i share the exact -- when i got briefed, i had the exact same take on it, which was that we did not want to have a t and c or exclusive t and c zone there. but i don't want to hold up funds for troubleshooting safety improvements, so that's the conundrum that we have. as we, in the previous item, the embarcadero
11:57 am
enhancements, which, unfortunately, because of design and review and funding issues -- it's a big project at $54 million, and are a ways off, and based on what we heard at the vision zero committee, which is what i never -- what i never see on a list is money for more enforcement. and what i really want, and what i really learned at that vision zero committee -- actually, every time we have it, is that what we're lacking is cops on motorcycles. and at any on one time in the city and county of san francisco, for the entire city, there are about 10 cops on bikes. and that number is woefully inadequate. i realize we cannot spend these funds on f.t.e. and enforcement, but that really has to become part of a vision zero scope.
11:58 am
and we've got to figure out other ways of tackling that. and while i'm waiting for the embarcadero enhancements and those safety improvements, we really need, in that area, which is ground zero for tourism along the embarcadero, we need cops on motorcycles. so i wanted to say that. i also -- and i see mr. mccormick is here from the m.t.a. -- whether or not we can have p.c.o.s with don't flog of box, and things of that nature, maybe we can have summer mccormick respond to that. with regard to t.m.c.s, i would love to see if we can work with uber and lyft, to keep them out of the bike lanes, and want to know if we've made
11:59 am
those overtures to the t and cs, and maybe mr. eldridge can answer that. while we're good -- while we're doing a lot on one of the three "e"s, which engineering, we need to step it up on the other two "e"s, enforcement and education. >> i think that's a lot of interesting ideas that require further thought within our body and other bodies. >> chairman: mr. mccormick -- oh, commissioner fuer first. >> thank you, chair. i just wanted to give you an update that supervisor manhandleman anmandelman and i d that same hearing you attended, and were rather appalled at the lack of motorcycle police officers and in full transparency,
12:00 pm
my husband was one for nine years. i wasn't seeing them in my neighborhood, but i am recently. because through an agreement and through discussions with the chief, we have put through one academy class now. there hadn't been an academy class in three years. and now another academy class is going through april or the beginning may, to train more motorcycle cops. we nee need to have enforcement, absolutely. we can't just make ordinances and not enforce them at all. actually, in my district, i just want to say, i've had two fatalities in one month. and both in intersections, and i think that enforcement is paramount if we want to meet our vision zero goals. having said that, i also think it is imperative on the public agencies to actually give some driving training refresher courses. i think that everyone can ben f

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on