tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 28, 2019 3:00am-4:01am PDT
services innovation with apta will introduce this item. jeff? and i want to thank team and you'll see their work product did an excellent job. >> good morning, directors. thank you, mark, for the brief introduction. my name is jeff hyatt and i'll forgive mark for mispronouncing my last name but i'll mess up his last name as well. which is why i call him mark z. [laughter] but we appreciate the opportunity to present the findings from our peer review panel to you today and i'm going to talk a little bit about just what our peer review process is and then let the panelists go over the observations and recommendations that came out of our review a few weeks ago. just real quickly and i guess i should briefly say, i think you're aware of the american public transportation association, we are a 1500-member association that represents the transit center. some of our members are
stakeholders and operators of this facility now and in the future. so, we certainly appreciated the opportunity to be able to come in here and assist tjpa in this effort and the scope that they have defined that we'll talk about. so the peer review process is a service that provides its members and others associated with the organization and it is a valuable resource. what it does is allows the opportunity to bring in highly experienced and knowledgeable professionals that are peers, you know, to the industry and really come and do a brief, deep dive into whatever the scope so we certainly appreciate the abilities for having our members be able to come in here and spend their time voluntarily and participate in these peer review processes. for the panel that conducted the peer review by reviewing
documentation that was provided to us by tjpa, we did a -- we had some interviews and a series of briefings with staff and we also were able to go out and walk through the facility and really take a good look at the facility itself. so, just to briefly introduce the members and as they come up, they will give you a little bit more of their background because i certainly won't be able to share the full breadth of experience and knowledge that they bring to this process. but one member of the peer review team, henry stoplecamp, is not -- was not able to be with us today but did participate in this review and he is the assistant general manager of capital programs at the regional transportation dmrikt denver, colorado. we also have present today richard clarke from los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority. eric sutaw from massachusetts bay transportation authority in boston and connie crawford and
they will give you more of their background when they come up and speak. so our agenda, i'm going to briefly talk about the scope of the review that we followed during this process and some of the objectives and then i'll turn it over to our experienced panelists who actually go through the observations and recommendationss that we'll focus on the organizational structure of tjpa, the project delivery and also the oversight and communication plan and that is where it provides the recommendations. as you know, this peer review was convened at the request of mark z. the executive director of the trans bay joint powers authority and he called us to really come in and review the management and oversight of phase one as we move into -- as tjpa moves into phases two and three of construction. and, again, we offer this as a resource to our members.
the objectives that were outlined in the request letter that we received include looking at phase one of the organizational structure that was in place for the planning, design, construction and facility management of the sales force transit center. and looking beyond into phases two and three, at -- [coughing] [inaudible]. and the different funding opportunities and design of what would be the tunnel extension bringing caltrain and possibly high speed rail into the transit center. and now i'm going to turn it every to mr. eric sutoff. >> thank you, jeff. thank you, mr. chairman. members of the board. mark. tjpa in general for giving us the opportunity to come in and speak to you on the findings of our peer review. i'm the chief engineer for the mbta or the massachusetts bay
transportation authority, where we operate about 1.3 million trips per day on our commute kerr rail, light rail, heavy rail, bus and ferry services in the greater boston metropolitan area. prior to being the chief engineer with the mbta for reference, i was the head of our engineering and maintenance division so that is the division that manages a workforce of about 850 employees and operating budget somewhere in the $150 million range for performing maintenance to our track signals, power facilities as well as purchasing our vehicless for revenue service on the authority and prior to that when i joined the mbta, it was as the number two for capital construction for the mbta, coming off a 13-year career as a bridge structural engineer for which i'm a registered professional engineer and structural engineering in bridges. so i'm here today to be a merry
christmas of this peer review panel and toque you about some of the organizational in structure and staffing that we noticed as we spent the three days in march talking to many of your staff and consultants that are building this very unique, very impressive facility for all of your services to operate out of and really stitching together some of the fabric of the city of san francisco. so opening remarks, if we can just pull back over. we were very impressed with how the tjpa has been able to pull together the phase one construction of this is project. very impressive. it's the type of project that can really drive economic growth, can really drive interconnectivity between the different modes that you are aiming to stitch together. very, very impressive work there. the stakeholder engagement and all the documentation that clearly has been going on for
decades around this project, this initiative, was great to see. and the financial planning and really the abilities to come together with value capture in a way that was very successful is something that i'm personally very keen on because it's something that we've been trying to do in boston for quite some time and that value capture has been very difficult to do. so, to see that there is a model out there that you've been successful in doing this is really encouraging where you have been able to drive a lot of investment in the neighborhood, a lot of investment to really promote transit and help the ridership of the different vendors that will operate in and out of the transbay center. so some of the observations that we had that the tjpa has a lean staff. it's something that is very
difficult to do to manage a project of this size when you look at the number of contracts and the type of subject matter expertise that you're looking for consult tanlzs to really drive for you that you don't haves that internal subject matter expertise internal to the organization to really own and drive the decision making. so, that is an area where we recommend and will recommend in later slides that you augment your internal staffing to be able to have some of those subject matter expertise, particularly as you start going into heavier tunnel construction for phases two and three and interacting with much more of the operational integrity of the different services operating in and out of transbay center. the completed project was very keen on what the operating model was going to be for center. very impressive operating model
with a balance of internal and outsoured workforce to provide an nation a.c. transit and caltrain and muni and bart also can have some connectivity to so that there is a safe, clean operating model that can be sustainable through the future and so it seems like you're set up to be in a really good place for how that is going to operate going forward. so i hinted to it earlier, but the recommendation is that the staffing levels increase for the tjpa particularly when it comes to the critical subject matter expertise like structural engineering, tunneling, some construction management, some project controls. you get into some of these more discrete modeling for construction activities and particularly when you get into
a decision matrix that my peers will discuss on the type of construction that you are going to use and type of procurement that you are going to use for the next phases of the project will be critical that you have internal staff to be part of that conversation and be part of seeing it from an owner's perspective as opposed to consultant's perspective. so some of those subjects matter expertise that we really feel that you should have on staff and whether they're full time tjpa employees or 1099 approach, we'll leave that to you to figure out. but you really should be looking at having a phase two program director, a chief engineer, could be combined with a tunneling specialist. but somebody who is this forest through the trees thinker from a construction and engineering point of view. but also can talk the operation
for specifically caltrain, i think at this point for phases two and three. but not lose sight of the needs of your bus operations and your muni operations in and out of the transbay center so you can sync up how those difference operating models will work during construction and what those impacts will look like and gauge it towards a future operating model where you have all services operating in and out on a timetable that is benefit foibler the customers that are going to be using the space. planning and environmenttal engineer, this is an area where, honestly you need an owner to own it and it is difficult for consultants to own this type of an area. without somebody internal to be able to see that grand vision and really be able to full right levers, you could spend some time whitling down into different options where somebody with that subject matter expertise is an internal stakeholder and owner of the
task can help drive decision-making more efficiently which will save time and ultimately costs. the program controls manager. that is one area that we see that phase one was really lacking and that phase two and three really needs and when we say project controls, this is cost estimating, scheduling, how those interrelate to one another and how it relates with the operating model that we have going on while you're under construction for all of these different phases. quality health and safety managers, i have to be honest, walking through, i was shocked at how many people didn't have hard hats on or safety glasses on. that is simple construction. but when looking at the re-opening efficientsers that you are going through right now and some of the others a completely separate issue when it comes to quality control from a fabricating issue. but when you are looking at it from a global health and
environmental safety point of view, you get a different view from when you're that person that is saying i'm the health and safety officer for the transbay center and has to own it. and then obviously the operational municipal liaisons. i think all of you serve in that role. but internal to the workforce, i'm just used to having my own internal operations personnel within the mbta really pushing for different goalss from an operating point of view and that will help drive better capital construction decisions going forward. the worse thing that could happen is you build something purely based on what the engineering staff says is the right construction solution. when the operating team needs to come back around the corner in the next month two after opening and modify because there is some kind of operating tweak that needs to happen.
so, having weeds level ownership at each of the different operating entities at the tjpa is important that we think, whether it's 40 hours a week, five days a week, or if it is a part-time type of involvement, somebody that needs to understand what the whole construction methodology will be and the final design and have the ability to provide good guidance to your chief engineer. obviously we would like, within any organization, there is succession planning and there is just a level of how much band width any one individual and any one expertise can process so there should be a support staff for each of those critical areas. but we'll leave the recommendation at sort of that
level because i think depending on where you are and what the mod is for the other construction recommendations that we'll have going forward, the subject matter expertise mailei within the different operating stakeholders. phases two and three, as you go through your transition or your reprocurement for this program going forward into phases two and three, there is a significant amount of knowledge transfer that needs to happen. i can tell you from experience, we had at the mbta we had our green line extension project that went through a major changover in consulting support service. there was a learning curve that the new team needed to go through. but i was also critical that we had personnel within our staff that had good history and was able to provide the ability to train up the new consulting
team, to understand the decisions that were made previously and create that and curve acceleration for the new team. and that will be critical in the next phase of the project. i'm going introduce wloik will go over our recommendations as it pertains to procurement and product delivery. >> aim the chief program management officer for los angeles metro. just a brief word about my background. i started on the east coast. spent 10 years in dallas working on their light rail systems integration manager. i moved to denver where i managed a large light rail highway project and became
manager of capital programs and finally made it to the west coast where i spent 3 1/2 years in l.a. we have a program that including all kinds of projects. so, i'm going to talk about project delivery. so the delivery method that was used for the first phase to deliver the terminal was cmgc, construction manager general contractor. it is a way of bringing collaboration from a contractor during the design process. it's had its challenges. it's not an easy method to deal with.
one of things we found on our observations was a lot of advantages of cmgc were not really -- didn't come to fruition in the first phase. there was not full collaboration between the contractor and the agency. a lot of the cost estimating was not accurate. so, that was a challenge doing change orders and predicting costs that would -- ha you can rely on. and we also found that there was -- i think every agency is dealing with the bitter pool. the hope is that with a contractor managing the bidding process that there would be a larger bidding pool. but that seemed to be a challenge during the project. but the focus that we want to
do is on phase two. what happeneded in the past has happened. there's some good lessons learned there that can be utilized moving forward. but phase two, you have an opportunity to rebaseline from scratch and take a good, hard look at delivery methods. when i talk about delivery methods, it's just to go from the two extremes. design bid build is where an agency will do 100% of design. they'll define everything. they ale try to engineer out major risk in the projects. and bid that to a low bid contractors who will build exactly what's in the plans. nothing more, nothing less. the other extreme is design-build where you give up some control but turn it over to pretty much a turnkey contractor who will design it
and build it, totally integrate and also the goal is to get some innovation from the private sector. so that is what we're talking about with delivery methods. so phase two, you know, it's had a number of starts and stops. where you are now it gives you a chance to rebaseline major decisions. so, we're recommending that there be a thorough [inaudible] of procurement options. the contract packaging decisions, i should look at a number of things. primarily we look at contracting methods based on the risk profile of the project, the staff experience and path experience.
staff experience very, very important. we did a project in denver that was quite challenging and i think one of the challenging pieces was another group, primarily consultants recommended cmgc, but i have to say myself and my team were not really bought into the method so that made it a challenge. the project was very successful at the end. but i always felt that the delivery method, again it was something that we didn't really buy into so we struggled with that project from start to finish. even though it did finish successfully. so, take a look at the experience of your staff and juans delivery method is selected, bring in the people who are comfortable with that delivery method. for example, if you do design-build, you may not want
detailed engineers who want to specify everything. and really interfere with the design-build process. you know, at metro right now, again we look primarily at the risk of the project. when i started at metro 3 1/2 years ago, i asked -- everything was being done design-build and i asked why and nobody really knew. there was no documentation. there was no analysis. and there were some projects that clearly should not have been design-build that were. and caused problems. so we've changed that. we now require documentation. we actually have a formal scoring process and this will help, you know, years in the future if somebody new comes in and says why are you doing it this way. there's now documentation and we now have a much greater mix
where we do now a lot of design bid-build. we still do design-build projects and we take desane a little higher than is normal in design build. primarily because of lessons learned that we had. so that is -- that is something that can be taken into account. we suggest that you have a project delivery workshop. there's a lot of advancing or disadvantages of every delivery method. and this workshop, to have your management staff participate in that way will lead to an informed decision. i can't come here and just look
at the project in one day and say it should be design-build. it needs to be a very, very reasoned process to go through. and to make that. so, we suggest that you have that workshop. probably when you have more key staff involved that probably will be managing it. that way we can say they're invested in the decision. again, you have a great opportunity to rebaseline phase two, the d.t.x. and even the pennsylvania avenue extension. these are really not rocket science. these are things that you are -- have under way and need to continue to go through and i won't read them all. but obviously keeping up your cost estimate. this is a very volatile -- i'm sure san francisco is like l.a.
i see a lot of cranes here. there's a lot of work. we're experiencing large increases in our bid prices which is a challenge. we're having trouble getting qualified people to be able to work on these projects. given that volatility, it's good to keep on top of that. i also -- also i did want to say i think it was on a previous slide. take advantage of lessons learned. so muni is building a subway right here. i'm sure that project team has great lessons learned, that they be able to share with the authority. it will be something that needs to be -- have in good cross-dialogue with that agency to find out what their recommendations would be.
what they would do different, what worked well. and on behalf of our c.e.o., phil washington, we'd love to have you visit los angeles. we're doing a number of tunneling projects. and we love to have you out there and show you what we're doing there. we gotta stick together in transit. [laughter] so these are some things moving forward. i know high speed rail has had some interesting things happen recently. we're building the other book end in southern california. so, we're aware of that. we suggest to reassess what the scope is in light of their plans. in southern california, we're not making any changes. high speed rail in the state is providing most of our funding so the saying is don't bite the hand that feeds you. so, we're working closely with
them and, you know, we continue to value engineer, but we do it jointly with high speed rail. and i'm sure you understand that dynamic. and, you know, there's opportunities. the project is not fully funded. the current station at king street yard is a great development opportunity. we went out and took a look at that. and if there is some possibility to leverage in that as a real estate value capture as you did in phase one, that would be an opportunity [please stand by]
>> it really helps make decisions quickly when you have a clear vision from on high. so i'm speaking to you all. it is a set strategy and a vision for the project. it makes it easier for mark and the whole team to make decisions if something comes up, you need to be able to make decisions quickly. decisions can cost hundreds of millions of dollars on a project
like this. is important to move forward as quickly as possible. and then the roles and responsibilities, as i mentioned , all these different stakeholders, they have a role in the future and the operations and maintenance of the system. you have to define what those roles are, what are the boundaries for maintenance of the system, where the boundaries for operation, but also bring them back into design and construction and what are the roles and responsibilities. it is important to define that upfront so there's no confusion. we found as we were asking questions when we were here back in march that for us, it was a little confusing what the roles and responsibilities of all the parties were for phase one, and so we think that has to be very clearly established so everybody knows what the roles are, and what their lane is, for any project, it is helpful to have a champion. somebody who is known in this city, someone who can stand up
for the project and help carry it forward, especially when all the funding is not in place yet for phases two and 33 -- two and three. someone step up and carry the project forward. one of our recommendations is that you consider bringing on an independent engineer. a lot of transit agencies have this. this is a professional engineering consultants. it could be an individual or a company. they report directly to you. they have unfettered access to all of the records, i can walk into any meeting, they can see everything, but they report to you so you have an independent eye and ear on what is going on. if you need a special study done on something, they would manage that for you. i think it would give you a lot of confidence that the project is going where you needed to go. it should be a professional and cordial relationship with the project team. the team will look to them as having their back very often, is what i found in new york. they would say, yeah, they're
doing the right thing, you get off they're back, they know what they are doing. but if they don't and they have some advice, like a, you might want to look at this example, this is also helpful. we all want the project to go well. all of the key stakeholders keep -- i keep mentioning the stakeholders, but they need to have a role in the project. good weed to do that is to assign a liaison to the project. it could be someone who is full time, they could be one of the key staff positions that erica mentioned, but they do two things. one is they make sure that there agencies' needs are being addressed, but when the project needs information from caltrain there someone who can get that information. sometimes it is a little hard to get information you need to. get them involved and make them part of the project, too. we came in, and we are really impressed by this project, you know, we walked around, we saw
it, we were sitting in our office is looking down at that gorgeous view on top of the project, the parkas gorgeous. we need -- we see the development that has happened around the neighborhood. we come from big cities that would love to be able to claim a project like this, so i think, right now, you know, we have heard about the girders. i'm a bridge engineer, too, so we know girders in a no cracks happen. things happen on projects, but a couple months from now, people will not be talked -- thinking about those things. they will be thinking about the huge transformation this project has had, and you guys should all be so proud of having been involved with this project. and i think it would be helpful to write down some of those things. what were those goals, what was achieved, and you have some great numbers of development in the area, and take that out. make sure everybody sees what good has come from this project. you always get negative news, but try to get out there with the good news for this project.
and then, our last recommendation, more of a practical one is, as you get into phase two and three, it is not uncommon for an agency to do some of the work that have stakeholders do other work. one simple apple is authority would handle the new tunnel construction, but when it comes to outfitting the truck signals, that would be handled by caltrain or california high-speed rail. that the operators will come in and do those aspects. just look at who is best at doing the different components, and you might share or reallocate some of the work as it goes forward. i think that is the end. yes. >> all right. just to conclude, really i hope that these findings are valuable
, that we intend to do a peer review. i certainly would like to thank mark for going through this process. it says a lot when someone asks you to bring in peers to come in and look at what is going on and provide some honest feedback and recommendations, and hopefully these are valuable to mark and the tjpa team. everyone during this whole process, ever since we started and we are asked to put together this panel has been extraordinary helpful and free and giving us all the information that is requested from mark, and their staff. it certainly has been a very easy process. we certainly appreciate the opportunity, and as mark knows, and as you can see, we certainly are here to continue to provide support as needed. do not hesitate to call them
individually as we move forward and into your next phases over the next several years. with that, i guess we can open up for any questions if you'd like to ask. >> i'm sure some of the board will have questions. questions? yes. >> thank you for the panel. i appreciate you did a really thorough review. this is more of a comment more then a question, but for us to consider the one thing that i took away, because you're going through a few of the different reviews from a different angle, and the recommendation of doing a little bit more case study work with central subway and maybe some of the projects in l.a. that you mentioned. it seems like something that we have embarked on. we are doing a number of case toward -- his case studies our projects, and there's lessons learned that i can certainly provide on that, but it seems
like there is some room. and i'm pointing towards tilley and mark a little bit to look at some of these things in similar scopes of projects and what the lessons learned are. that is something i'm taking away from the panel here. best to get onto those who are running those processes from that side of the table. >> may i go next? i serve as director of the county transportation authority which are undertaking a separate but related peer review. i want to thank you all and commend you all for the work you have done. and just a short period of time. we really appreciate your tremendous experience that you bring, the expertise that you bring, as well. the findings, particularly around the capacity and expertise that we have at the tjpa was very well taken. i think that resonated with a lot of the folks who are working on similar issues in a similar process. i wanted to see if there's anything that you thought -- i
was particularly struck by, i don't remember who it was, perhaps it was you, but the interaction of the operating needs to the capital design, and trying to make it all work for everybody. the role of the tjpa, there was a recommendation that we could have a tjpa continuing to focus on the construction of the infrastructure, and perhaps have an operator or two work out some of the systems. but i would like to explore a little bit more of that topic. could you consider the role of the tjpa as far as being able to manage, in any way the type of operation in the medium term, or is it just getting the job done, building infrastructure, working at the next piece, certain delivery options go beyond the construction phase. so what is the role of the dg -- the tjpa to consider the project delivery alternative approaches,
and the relationship, the capacity versus looking at it phase by phase. >> i guess we would say, from my perspective, anyway, working with projects of similar types in that you have very many stakeholders coming in together, but there needs to be a unifying programmatic the court -- approach to solving it. that is the space that they they can exceed and excel in. caltrain may have one set of desires and a.c. transit may have another set of desires. and munimobile and bart and the city, and tjpa can have that division for what the project needs to accomplish and fill in the gaps and will materialize when coming from the tunnel vision viewpoint of the different agencies that are collectively coming together,
and being able to manage the gap areas, and being able to manage the construction of the condo complex that these different agencies are going to operate within, and then facilitate the ability for those different entities to be able to partner from their operating needs and build out what their needs are. i don't think the tjpa's role is reduced in any way, shape, or form, i think it just needs to be able to liaise differently with these other agencies as they are moving forward into the next phases of the project. it gets much more difficult when you're dealing with some of the train systems and you are trying to do all that work underground at the same time. there's a lot of areas in the tjpa where we need this information so we can facilitate the construction. and then okay, this thing that
high-speed rail needs is the thing that caltrain needs. let's solve this discrepancy can reach so we can fill in the gap and move forward with the program. that is the role i see. >> okay. , thank you. >> i just want to add this specific thing that we suggest you look at, is caltrain is going to build signals power systems that are going to be from san jose to the edge of this project. why not consider them doing that part of this project, the power and the signals, that way they can make it common with the rest of their system? >> of course. certainly, that makes sense. >> another way to look at it is the authority is the owner, and if you are building a new building, you might have a
restaurant and you might have the restaurant his -- he might have that restaurant to subcontract that out. we will let them set up that space so they can operate more efficiently. and another thing is, we have railroads appear on the board. i have worked with railroads for many years. railroads are difficult to, please. if they are doing the work themselves. [laughter] if they are doing the work themselves -- you should try the bus operators. [laughter] >> but if they are doing the work, they may take a little longer to sign off on it. >> one quick follow-up. the chicken and egg or the dependency that i noted in your recommendations about product delivery taking into account the capacity of the agency, will also making the recommendation to strengthen that capacity, so really what should we be looking at? have the capacity to consider all forms of project delivery and not let that be a dependency , or note there could
be some constraints to what we could actually do as far as project delivery decision. >> once the funding is in place and there is a go on this project, it is a ten year project. the agency, i would say right now, probably doesn't have the capacity, but they can build it, and that's a big part of our recommendation, is to build that capacity. >> thank you. >> if i could follow, i caught the same -- what i saw as a catch 22, which is you want to have folks that are familiar with design if that's the way you want to go. you want them to be part of the decision, you want them to have the experience and executing the design bill, but in order -- we don't know yet, and i really want to thank you, by the way, for providing the methodology for determining project delivery i have been seeking that for ten years. and i think l.a. metro for
sharing that with us and the rest of the transit industry. but since we don't know yet, how do you have -- how do you staff up to do that analysis. i think what tilley was asking, do you have folks who have a spectrum of project delivery responsibility to make that determination who will then continue on so they are equipped to do design build, or others? >> i thank you need a very strong construction program manager that understands, generally, all the nuts and bolts of the different delivery methods, and then that strong project manager, when the board and the organization decide that what you're delivery method is going to be, then you bring on additional staff that has that subject matter expertise for the specific type of delivery method you will follow through on. but i think that overall program manager will be much more of a visionary person that will stay
higher level that will need the expertise of the day-to-day operational aspects to be able to engage with the organization then is different with engaging with design builder. >> thank you. if i could add, i have stolen the microphone here, i first want to thank our vice chair who had the suggestion to ask them to do a peer review, and i will be honest, i was a little sceptical of how fruitful that would be, but i'm super impressed with what you all have produced, and particularly in such a short timeline. so thank you to mark for getting underway quickly, and jeff for getting folks together. i really want to thank you all. these are folks who are at the top of their field and have very big day jobs, and the fact that you are willing, as well as your colleague and you are willing to take your time to do this for the benefit of another transit agency, we all need to stick
together. i really appreciate that and thank you. it is an exceptional piece of work and i think it will really help us. there are some things in here that, you know, some of us have thought of over the years, but there are also some things that probably none of us had thought of. very helpful. thank you for that. >> yes? >> the director said mostly of what i wanted to say. to thank you. it is a membership driven organization. we pay dues to the members of. i was trying to be subtle. [laughter] >> having served as a peer panelist, and having several reviews done on his similar items to this, is one of the strongest benefits of being a member, and i appreciate jeff your leadership, and the panelists for serving. it is an excellent report. no disrespect or criticism to any staff or the panelists, i think it is too early to roll on an operations question. it is truly remarkable, the
project that has been delivered, and i agree with your comments and we need to celebrate such an incredible best of class facility. we don't know the complications of the operation yet. what we have today is not what we envisioned when we started, when you all started this 15 years ago, and the notion that the train would be here at the same time as the bus facility. so i put in and ask for the operations issue, and a look to tillie and the d.t.x. and the other peer review to really look at best practices as we move forward for what the best government for the operations portion is, and fully admit my bias. i have been reminded millions of times that 70 2% of the funding for any operations over this. yes, i am biased. thank you for your work. i think we still need to do more study on operations governance. >> director hirsch, that is only temporary until the train gets here and then that number will change. [laughter]. >> that is true. >> anyway, i want to thank the
board, i want to thank the panel for jumping in, and i appreciate the scepticism. i think this is a very valuable approach to looking at what we are doing, and one thing that i think might be helpful is to keep the panel together a little bit to see what the sfcta comes up with. they might be a time where the peer-reviewed panels compare notes, and then sift the comments up higher for us to consider at the tjpa. i could probably spend the next hour asking questions, but i will stick to the high-level. thank you for jumping in and your expertise. on the project delivery comment or section, thank you. when i ask about project delivery and i have done all of them plus others, i always interview the organization first about capacity, culture, capabilities, a whole number of different things before i even answer the question of what is the best delivery, because it is
tied to a catch 22. you have to have the right people for the right delivery, but we don't know what the right delivery is because -- it is a back and forth, and a workshop or a steady effort to see how to combine talent, funding, timeliness, all of that together i think, eric, you started with the first section, and i am always challenged about how long these large projects take, and when you get to the staffing issue, it is always a challenge, so i'm just curious on the staffing issue, how do you attract, retain, and keep people for decades, and minimize turnover, because in a ten year project, it would not be unusual to have three acts of turnover, if not 20 years. how do you reconcile all of that together? >> especially in a hot market.
>> sure. very difficult. we went through a similar scenario that you went through, not similar, because we went even further and we ended up firing the program control entity on the green line extension program. one of the key criticisms from the board of directors was that we had four people managing a two billion-dollar extension of the light rail system, and so we went out and we hired contract employees at above market rate to come on so there contracts enveloped the terms of the construction project, and then we supported them in hiring additional support staff that would be able to create that succession planning and that ability to adjust for turnover,
but then really engaged with them in a way that was differently than we engaged with the four individuals who were managing the construction program before we ran out and hired. i shared our organizational structure with mark and, you know, it is a massive, you know, uptake uptick in the number of staffing that we brought on for our two billion-dollar extension project, but you have to pay for that very senior level personnel status that then can lead a team of really qualified individuals. it is not to say you will do it without consultants. we have a significant number of consultants that are direct hires, and are part of a construction entity, so you're never going to get out of the hole, you know, all internal staffing. it is picking and choosing how
you go about leveraging consultant support services versus internal staff, versus 1099 contract employees. we have a pretty good balance set up. i am happy to share with anybody a deep dive and anyone in the contact information for program manager for how he is able to manage this consortium of folks in this big project for us, but it is a real trick. the turnover in this industry is very difficult. i think there's a lot of professionals in all of our jobs that, you know, they understand the bigger picture of what we are doing. so how you get an employee to come on, you will have to pay for them. >> the panel talked about, a little bit softly, there were a lot of people who do know -- do not connect the two.
san francisco unfortunately has the number 1 ranking in terms of construction costs in the country right now. we're looking at a 39% increase over four years. you talked about purposeful and timely decision-making. how do we recognize -- reconcile that so we are still not here talking about this five years from now and nothing is going forward? >> it starts with you all, really establishing a framework and establishing what the goals are, making sure everyone knows what the goals are and supporting decisions that will allow the project to go forward. you are right, inflation is a real problem. you will have to budget that in. you can't be surprised every year when the costs go up. that is the trend, and you expect it to keep happening.
>> since you are at the microphone, how did we manage the regional politics? >> i think your politics are worse than new york city. [laughter] from what i am hearing, there are so many different factions, even just the management of san francisco that has so many different factions. i don't understand and i am confused from what i heard, but the part about having a strong stakeholder, as a champion for the project, someone who will, thick and thin, stand up for the project. i don't have enough knowledge to figure out who that might be, but somebody who can be standing up for the project who will be helpful. >> i could go on for hours. i want to think the board and the panel. you guys have been great. we do have an update to look at the reports and have a
conversation and see what is the best of the best and go forward from there. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you all very much. [laughter] >> i also concur with everything from my fellow board members and what they have said. the report was amazing, the feedback was interesting. it is making me think about what i want to do. but you talked about cost estimates, and i think what i missed in this is the financing. i know this was an innovative financing structure. you have a multibillion-dollar project when you are relying on funding in the future, or you need to engage with the feds. is there a way to coordinate and collaborate along that's a resources are available when it's needed? i think some of that was missing as well, but it could be another
documentation. [laughter] and not to review. it is outside the scope, i guess >> the other way is what we call bill to budget and, you know, if you have $2 billion, start building $2 billion worth, and it should be something useful at the end of that $2 billion. >> okay. >> once you are building, people do want to put stuff in it. if you build the tunnel shelf, you will somehow find the money to put systems in their. >> we are actually on our project where we are building a high speed rail. we have billion dollars. the total project is $2 billion, so we have jointly, with the commuter rail operator and high-speed rail, we have
identified a billion dollars of work that still provides a useful project that we can't get any more money, so i don't know the specifics of this project, but maybe there's something you can identify, something to get started and build momentum, and then keep searching for the rest of the money. >> if i could, i think there's an interrelationship with all of this. i mean, you can't tease out all of it. i think, you know, there's been a lot of comments -- director hirsch, your comments and some of the operating performance that this program needs to handle, i think that's part of it, too. it goes back to -- even though it is not rocket science, but rebate signing, your scope, your schedule, your budget, and looking at what all those pieces are, with and also looking at what sheet of the operating performers will come out of that
scope the program going forward for what is needed to operate the services that you are trying to accomplish so that you've got all the facts you can work with all your different funding partners to say the operating performer for e.c. truck -- a.c. transit, for example, is ask, and what that needs to be in order or funding the capital program to minimize a.c. transit , and caltrain and munimobile, and high-speed rail. all of that needs to be stitched together. as much are we -- as much as we are saying to move fast to be setup to make quicker decisions, i think there is a core set of facts that needs to be collected now so that you are set up to make good decisions. unfortunately, it will feel like a pause to the program, but getting all those facts collected across the entire board to enter all of those pieces now at a baseline level, so you set up to make, you know, concise decisions moving forward , is going to be critical to the success of the program.
>> on behalf of our board and the city, we would like to thank you for all the insight and the work that you have done, you know, it is our politics that has produced this beautiful structure. [laughter] >> so that is how it is in san francisco. we all have to work together to do that, but, yeah, every day we live in brief this project and we learn new things in this contribution has been very valuable, and i would love for you all to stay involved in it, also. we know we have a long journey to get our trains to the station we still have to build out the project, and so we are excited, and we'll continue learning from everyone, and i'm pretty sure this will be a model for the country. thank you for your work. >> all right. no members of indicated they
want to comment on the item. at this time -- mr. patrick, yes [indiscernible] >> they mentioned the word champion. this came up in our board meeting two nights ago. we have a champion. the champion was the voters for this project, and we don't have a champion -- the champions are the voters. you can't put your hands around them. but you guys, this board, is tasked with being that champion, we have to designate, or you have to hire a champion, and i think she was right when she talked about a champion, and it came up at the board meeting. the notion of a champion is to sell the project, sell it every single day, every time it turns around, i want to give you a pen from the transit center, i want to do whatever you have to do you have to knock the heck out of this thing. i'm looking for a