commissioner mar: good morning,

everyone. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee. i am joined by commissioner chris daly and sophie maxwell. erica chang it is our clark. i want to take a moment to thank sfgtv for providing access to the meeting. madam clerk, please call item two. >> approval of minutes of the november 9, 2010 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection. item two. -- item three. >> recommend increasing the amount of the authority's professional services contract with parsons transportation group by a maximum of $1,700,000, to a total amount not to exceed $3,972,046, for environmental and

preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate the contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, senior planner manager, manager of the van ness brt current phase, environmental analysis, product development. that is what%, 30% engineering. van ness bus rapid transit is a signature project within the prop k expenditure plan, part of the transportation authority to recommend a strategy for rapid transit expansion in san francisco from our 2004 countywide 2000 -- transportation plan. it is a regional small starts priority in a highly rated sfta -- fta project. the project is currently in the environmental analysis, product

development phase. we have made a significant amount of progress on this phase. we have completed all the technical studies in support of the anbar the document and are running the administration draft. completed 12% engineering. right now, we are on the verge of circulating the public draft of the eir, eis, identifying a preferred alternative, and initiating 35% engineering on that provocative. the request before you is to amend our contract with parsons transportation group for their portion to getting to the finish line of completing and circulate the environment the document and supporting the 30% project development effort. it is a new scope item and all of those areas. the bigger picture for this phase is it is being conducted in three stages. the first stage is the work we have already done to complete

the environmental technical analyses and to complete the 12% project development, which is already done. stage two is the subject of this current contract amendment. the larger picture is that it is the scope of work that also includes a significant mta and dpw support for 30% project development. the scope for this stage include completing the environmental analysis, with some additional technical works that were identified, based on the public and agency in but we have gone over the last year, and beginning a 30% project development. stage 3 is the completion of the product development work to 30%, and the designation of phase three is based on funding -- the funding timeframe. this is the point in which we

expect to be able to leverage small starts money for stage three. for this phase, the bigger picture is that we are doing very well in cost effectively completing this. right now, this total set of three stages is about $8.8 million, which is 7% of the project construction costs, capital cost. so this is below industry averages for this stage. the parsons role in this stage is equivalent to the mta and agency's role in the state. a 30% project development effort that is split between parsons transportation group engineering group and sfmta, dpw product engineering.

-- project engineering. that is where the rest upper the phase amount that = 3.45 will be spent. commissioner mar: commissioner maxwell? commissioner maxwell: so it will be spent with parsons? are you saying that the 1.7 is going to be divided among all of them? >> the total cost for this stage is the $3.45 million. this is page two, a total of $3.45 million. there is $1.7 million of that which are recommended not to exceed contract amount 4 parsons. also, $1.75 million which will fund the mta, dpw,

transportation authority project oversight work. commissioner alioto-pier: in -- commissioner maxwell: in the beginning, we kept on coming back to the well with parsons. was there an initial scope of work, initial price, so was it done in phases? it reads like there is more. >> we have an original contract and not with parsons from 2007 when we initiated the environmental work and product development. you can see the total amount before you in the presentation, $1.7 million. this included environmental analysis on two alternatives, 12% project development. we did amend the contract in 2009 and it + 2 @ scope to the environmental work. fortunately, as a result of the scoping process, we did need to

add another build alternative analysis into the mix. we also needed to build in the scope to address the caltrans approval process. the project report, we were able to negotiate with caltrans on a streamlined process, so a combined report instead of sequentially. we feel it is still something we need to do. the reason we added that later was because we did not want to negotiate with caltrans to try to get something more streamlined, so we did. it was something we needed to add to amendment a. now where we are is this proposed amendment fee. -- amendment b. there are two scope additions to our work with parsons.

the first one relates to environmental analysis work. over the last year, we have done a lot of out reach with our partner agencies and with the public, particularly our citizens advisory committee, and as a result of that out reach, have been analyzing design scenarios that respond to agency concerns and stickle their questions and concerns. the largest part of this contract amendment is our approach to 30% project development which is something that we have worked out with mta over the past year, and we have -- are going to have an effective approach. commissioner maxwell: so this is not anything that you saw in the beginning? as you went along the way, you decided that this would be good? >> yes, the 30% project development approach that we had going in at the beginning in 2007 was just to have parsons do

basic civil work. what we have learned, and now we have built up a team that includes mt a, a capital project staff -- mta, capital projects that, staff engineers, is it will be more efficient ultimately to initiate many of these engineering tests sooner. now they can start sharing that information and expand the activity, beyond basic civil war, into other areas, signal design, for example. it brings more of these activities for word, so it is a much higher level of effort than we thought we would do for 30%, but we are recommending it. we think it will be more efficient in the end. again, we are doing quite well

in this project, in terms of the cost in this phase. the proposal before you is related to a cost for this phase which is 7% of the total capital cost, and that is below industry average for what this stage typically costs. commissioner mar: thank you. >> i hope i have answered your questions. everything else here addresses the specifics of the scope of the engineering work that parsons would do, and how that would compare to the scope of work that dpw and mta would do. construction is slated to start in 2013, service beginning in 2015. commissioner mar: for the public interest, groundbreaking would be somewhere around 2013, and the project completed some time

around the end of 2014? >> yes, early 2015. commissioner mar: thank you. any other questions? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection, can remove this item fort with recommendations? thank you. next item. >> recommend increasing the amount of the authority's professional services contract with jacobs engineering group by $1,054,565, to a total amount not to exceed $2,854,565, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. transportation planner. very similar to the van ness project, geary brt is identified in the countywide transportation plan and is one of the key

routes identified in the transit affected this project of mt a. as we move forward, the feasibility study was adopted in 2007 to begin the eir eis. one thing i should note that is different about geary, the prop k line which specifies it must be rail-ready. we are doing more on the design work to make sure that if the decision is made to enhance rail, the physical dimensions are incorporated so we can minimize potential impact. one of the first items i should know in terms of new scope, we identified three alternative contract amendments. the contract identified only two build alternatives. similar to van ness, we are looking at three build alternatives in addition to the baseline.

we have many different technical studies under way for the project. as part of the study, one thing we have identified are a couple of new areas of work that need to be focused on, moving forward. part of the design drawings, they pay focus to that, and a majority of the pending studies are contingent on the completion of the design drawings. as soon as they are complete, we expect them next year to move forward with additional studies. one of the key areas we need to focus on, moving forward, is more analysis of the separate intersections and transition zones. for geary, we're looking at the corridor between market street and the ocean. we are focused on potential dedicated lanes between van ness and 33rd, but it requires us to look at how the quarter integrates 1-way couplets east of galt.

then we need to focus on how we can integrate the a typical intersections. there are some transition analyses. another area is the great intersection segments themselves. one of the territory have learned, talking to communities, wanted to do more analysis of the fillmore area. we started with what we thought would be three alternatives, moving into the environmental analysis as a result of committed to feedback, we needed to do nine. we now know we are able to narrow them down to two but we need to do more work, particularly on the engineering side of what happens at fillmore, if we fill in the trench and bring traffic to the surface. this is one of the things that has produced significant

community support. then at masonic -- commissioner mar: could i slow you down a little bit? fillmore and the geary, the filling in of the tunnel has community support, but it has a $50 million price tag, compared to the service road option. >> right, filling in the tragic costs more than maximizing the existing operation of the service road. a number one concern we have heard from the community is a way to bring the communities on either side of geary back together and to reduce the barrier that jury creates with -- here it creates with the existing expressway. -- geary creates with the existing expressway. [unintelligible] money to do more engineering

work in order to get there. commissioner maxwell: you mentioned that four classes of service. >> in the case of van ness, there are two services, up 47, 49. they're both locals. with the geary, we have the third a limited which would become brt service. then we have express' services at the golden gate as well. one thing we need to incorporate is making sure those services can be accommodated within the brt segment of the busway by incorporating a passing option. we need to do more analysis of that as well as part of this next phase. commissioner maxwell: when you mention filling in, you mean actually putting in dirt and building it up so that -- a >> exactly. restoring the normal street pattern.

-- >> exactly. restoring the normal street pattern. at masonic, there are two options we are about a wedding as well. we are not changing the features, however, we need to incorporate more analysis of particularly bicycle facilities in the area, which is something that came out of our analysis in the past couple of years, and also, coordination on some of the new developments, figuring out how to mitigate the potential impacts. the bicycle planning from the masonic to presidio is one of the key areas we identified as part of our analysis over the last couple of months. one of the things that we found is there is a desire