>> if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i to improving its operations, i encourara so are you going out tonight? i can't. my parents say i have to be home right after work. ugh. that's so gay. totally gay. ugh. that is so emma and julia. why are you saying, "that's so emma and julia"? well, you know, when something is dumb or stupid, you say, "that's so emma and julia." who says that? everyone. announcer: imagine if who you are were used as an insult. please stand by.

please stand by. please stand by. so 03 executive directors report. >> since our last meeting on october 14, we continue to make

progress. an excavation package is ongoing. how the court pallia architect is 20% complete with the documents. the request for qualification for the design build construction services trade package was advertised october 4. we received responses to the rfq. we have a value in the responses and will be sending out a notification next week. we have also issued a notice to proceed for the utility relocation contract. the first reconstruction meeting was held on october 21. with respect to the second and third utility relocation visits, we expect to issue those on november 9 with the fourth one being issued november 6.

at the terminal we are expected to complete phase two of the terminal for operations to commence around december 11. i did want to mention with respect to rider request on the benches, we have increased this about 15%. we have all so requested five more benches with armrests for phase two, when it opens. this will result in a 62% increase in the number of benches at the completion of phase two. with respect to the rest rooms, in conjunction with finishing up the face to work at the terminal, we are investigating various options to provide restrooms while also maintaining and addressing the safety concerns we have had. i expect to come back to the board for an update on the various restrooms. we have also met with the

mayor's disability council. we looked at issue is focused on access for personal with disabilities for completion of the phase two temporary facility. with respect to the rail design, we continue to coordinate with caltrain and high speed rail on all aspects. we recently completed a bay bridge corridor study that i wanted to present to the board. we recently completed a study on behalf of the tjpa and transit. we administer the contract for a total cost of $350,000. cambridge systematics and other organizations worked on this to assess future highway situations in the corridor and to see if current systems could work affectively.

now i would like to ask tony to present the results of the study. >> thank you. this is the first look at what traffic conditions will be like in future years as traffic grows. we also took have a look at market street traffic to see if we could start cleaning that up. in the bay bridge corridor right now, in the morning, peak hour, we push through about 42,000 people from the east bay to san francisco. about 18,000 of them are on board. 22,000 coming across the bridge. -- bart. in the future, these are the

projections that we get. population in the east pay increases. -- bay increases. population in san francisco also continues to increase. our projections, cambridge gave us the over all travel projections for the bay bridge corridor. if you look at this chart, the capacity of the bay bridge in the four-hour peak period, 36,000 vehicles. the demand is 37,000 vehicles. that is why we have this big queu in the mornine in the morn.

even whip the small increase that is projected in traffic, we end up with a demand of 43,000 vehicles and a capacity of only 36,000. what will happen is the queue at the bay bridge will get really big. we are also dealing with whole corridor. the whole corridor is getting more congested because of more demand. right now we make about 15,000 trips. 42,000 trips. we actually have capacity for about 50,000. we have increases in bart

capacity. in bonds us up to over 60,000. but in 2030, 2035, we eat up almost all the capacity. the point of the study was, in the interim as capacity becomes more important, we want to make sure buses can get through because it is in fort -- important to fill out that capacity requirement. we are looking to push through another 20,000 people per hour. we know bart can take a around 10,000. the transbay transit center has a capacity of almost 20,000, but we have to get the buses there. right now, caltrans has put

together a very effective system. our model, we mimic what caltrans did. the measures that they took were very successful with the current level of traffic. the question is what happens in the future. there is a metering flight which holds the traffic backed so that traffic does not exceed capacity of the bridge. the metering lights are activated around 6:30 every morning. the queue starts spilling back about three-quarters of the way back. as you can see, the hov bypass extends beyond that. so the question is, is that

going to work in the future? just a few caveat on what we did not study. these are all conceptual ideas. there do not seem to be any fatal flaws to the design, but by no means have they been thoroughly analyzed. congestion pricing in our forecast is not considered. on the other hand, bart capacity is also not considered. travel models do not assume that bart has a capacity limit, so of the model keeps on dumping people on to bart, even if they cannot handle them. at the same time, we have not induced traffic.

as far as people using it to its capacity, that has also not been factored in. basically, we modeled out in the system. it is about a 24-mile model that goes from 580, the 80 split in albany, and then down on 880, past the open, beyond the bay bridge, the central freeway. we worked with caltrans to find the parameters of the model. this is just a microbe simulation model. you will be able to see the output. we also monitor the traffic in

and 80-block area from market, embarcadero, fifth street, to just beyond the bridge. we have lots of queueing problems in the afternoon. for the bay bridge corridor, we want to measure these on pieces of performance. caltrans policy is not to allow congestion beyond the junction, what we call the macarthur maze. they call it the distribution center. this and reallocks up and you cannot get anywhere -- area locks up and you cannot get anywhere.

finally, the last measure we had was reliability. we did not want any simple transit trip to take any longer than 14 minutes. the first thing we did is we build a system model and calibrated it against actual positions. we matched the existing conditions. now we have this video that shows 2035 what the traffic will be like on 80 and the toll plaza. it is going to start at the 580/80 junction in albany. it is going to fly over the toll plaza and bridge. as you can see, traffic is

running pretty well. no problems at the merge. we are about to pass university ave. and as we come up to powell street, you will see the traffic begins to bunch up. >> what time is this? >> this is a clock in the morning. -- 8:00 in the morning. as i tell my east bay

compatriots, a weekday morning will look like a saturday afternoon now, which is traffic as far as the eye can see. a different color cars, by the way, we calibrated this model by payment type, so there is fast track, tolls, pools. i think pink is a fast track. i do not remember what the others are. >> so we are coming across the new ramp near treasure island. coming across the bridge.

the bridge is pretty free- flowing because everything is held back at the toll plaza. we do not seem to have any problems at the ramp here. the bottom line is, when we did the measurements, and the future here conditions without any improvements, it failed. we looked at a series of improvements that would mitigate those traffic congestions. essentially, we look at extending the hov system in the east bay. we look at extending it at the west ramp. we also looked at a contra flow lane on the bridge itself. that would basically be a movable barrier that slides over to one side in the morning,

where you take the northern most lane and convert it into a bus lane. if we decided to pursue the hot network, that might be an idea. we could also put trucks on it. we measure 1000 vehicles out of the queue at the toll plaza, but exactly how we do it requires more discussion. so to actually make it work in the design of the transbay terminal system, we need to do some improvements on the essex street ramp and that will allow vehicles to get into the new transit center reps.

the good news is it does not affect the current design. cost estimates for the improvements. these do not include contingencies. including contingencies, near $250 million. again, requires more study. this slide goes through performance metrics. under current conditions, everything is working fine. there is an occasional case where there is a stall, things break down, but on the average day, the system works pretty well. it continues to work well until 2020. then it starts degrading. in 2030, we get degradation where every one of our performance metrics fails. we get congestion all the way

back to the distribution structure and slow transit speeds across the bridge. we looked at just changing the metering rates, which is generally what caltrans does on a saturday when traffic is really bad. you are pumping more cars onto the bridge. that reduces the gridlock in the distribution structure but degrades bridge travel significantly below standards. so we looked at two improvement options. the only difference is the hov lane on 580. we reduced congestion at the toll plaza and increase transit speed at both gates. the summary is, basically, the

corridor is approaching capacity. we know we have to push through another 25,000 people. bus service to the transbay transit center will need to meet our goals and we need to look at improvement to make the highway system as effective as possible. we want to reduce the queue on first street, essex street. we did various models. that is the area. our desired outcomes is to push the queue back to where it does not extend beyond folsom and howard. we also wanted to increase

speeds in the area. we only tested the model of a couple of times. we do not have a validated model, but we have turned it over to the city, and they are excited to be using it to work at some other options. these are the existing conditions which shows queues as far as the eye can see. this is what happens when the giants have a game in the afternoon. we have a proposal to turn up the sixth straight into southbound. the other thing we are doing, we are talking with caltrans. we want to move the hov lanes on the sterling ramp to the north side. we think we can do all of this and keep things in balance and

even improve the situation. what we found working with this, the way the freeway is configured eastbound, it causes congestion on the freeway and the streets. as we go forward, we want to reconfigure to see if we can pick up some capacity. this is just a summary of what i just said. if we make any improvements in the morning on essex street, in the morning, we have to coordinate that with what we are doing in the afternoon. >> to get a better understanding of the issues, best practices, implementation options. the other thing that will feed into the bay crossing study, which mta is soliciting for now. that is all, thank you.

the report will be on the actransit website. >> did you conclude oil prices going up? the numbers may increase dramatically if oil prices go up. >> that is right. if oil goes up, less people would drive, and we could probably make the system work better with less improvements. >> we have not had a chance to review this. [inaudible] [inaudible]

very concerned about the contra flow. at the present time, our operation is such that in the morning [inaudible] that causes some congestion. but not enough to not allow us to do that. with an additional lane being talked about, i think that would be a concern. secondly, having a positive barrier separating the contra flow would also cause concern. and the incident in the lane would shut down the lane. [no audio] there is no way that the bus or truck could get out of the lane. the recent pricing on the bay bridge has shown there is a reduction of about 10,000 on the

bridge itself. we need more data. we have been only talking about this for the past few months. that needs to be incorporated into the document. i think it is good to look at access to the bridge, more so than actually how things happened on the bridge. we are still trying to get the capacity close to 40,000. you said it is 36,000, five lanes. we are trying to get it up to 40,000. the last point is also to incorporate the information that would be coming out of the bicycle study on the west side. that has other connections,

potentially in the same area that this study is looking at [no audio] making the connection to the island and finally making the connection to pike utilities. >> just on a couple of those points, we have been talking with the consultants who have been working on that study. i agree with you that the issues of how we deal with maintenance -- one of the recommendations, going forward, will be identifying those issues and putting them together. it is true, except the new bridge will have a shoulder. it only becomes an issue on the suspension part, which is only a mile and a half, but you are

right. it would have to be factored in. we are taking public comments until the end of the year. we have been working closely with caltrans on this. we have been talking to them the whole time, but it is true, we just gave them the model about two weeks ago. >> thank you. now on the funding update, i would like to have nancy willett present that. >> wheat just allocated 9.6 million in phase one. we are meeting with others and we recently submitted our reimbursement proposal. we hope to see those funds flowing to us soon. on pace to we are continuing our efforts to seek funding. we are in the near term looking for funding for the technical

studies, to keep that moving forward. that is all i have for today. >> and i would like to have tom give us an update on the spe. >> good morning, board. i wanted to give an update on the sbe activities. on october 20, we had a bid for the opening tg-1901 package. that is on the calendar today for approval. their lowest bid was at $663,000 to relocate and to build the interim screen wall at 301 mission. in november, we will have a really busy month. we have a big opening for the

tg03 excavation package on november 20 -- i'm sorry, november 9. we will also have been openings as well for the 4.4 san -- and 4.3 package, which are both part of the site utility package. we have meetings for both of those packages on october 27. continuing with our reach efforts, last wednesday, we participated in that event. on item 27, at the galleria design center. it was very successful, and we will continue doing our outreach efforts moving forward. >> thank you. now, our demolition update. >> good morning, steve with turner construction, construction management oversight. another great month working on the demo progress. no incidents, injuries, or no incidents, injuries, or accidents.