right now the way that the schedule has been for several procurements is we buy all the buses at one time. we get somewhere between 450 and 500 buses at one time. while there are some efficiencies gained by this strategy in terms of the costs it does mean all your vehicles are brand-new at the same time, aged at the same rate and tend to experience the same types of failures at the same time. this is demonstrated in the graph here, showing how the average vehicle age of our bus fleet has sitting peaks and valleys, depending on where in that life cycle we are at. >> just a question. we don't typically -- we don't always buy new vehicles. sometimes we buy vehicles that are restored, is that correct? we just bought some diesel flight from one other county in the past five years or so. >> a number of years ago we

did buy some used vehicles from ac transit. that was part of the move to the clean diesel to get the oldest buses out of service as quickly as possible. that was kind of a one-time fix. traditionally with buses we would be buying new vehicles about every 12. >> of the ones we buy that are used, we don't have a sense of what their long-term needs will be in terms of maintenance or do we? will they come some kind of guarantee they are actually close to new and expect a same life cycle, where they need maintenance at the same time? is that general how we do our business? >> if we make those type decisions we evaluate the fleet we plan to purúhase,

understand the maintenance, life cycle, what type of activities occur so we can project what we will need the take on to operator that fleet for the time we intend to. some of these -- why this isn't just a straight peak and valley is we do have a few procurements that were off-cycle. what we would like to shift is more of an annual process where we buy 50 to 100 buses about every year for the next five or six. that will spread out the average age as ku can see in this chart to that bottom line. where our fleet average would be between four and six years. about half the useful life of a bus. we are really like an industry target we are trying to achieve. besides the age, this would also help to level out our maintenance demands that we'd be able to stretch those out over a longer

period of time, increase our liability and increase technology improvements on incremental basis rather than waiting 12-year cycles before new technologies can be implemented. this table show is the five-year procurement in terms of the number of vehicles we plan to place into service over the next five years. as maria mentioned, we are initiating our hybrid procurement, the top line for 57 vehicles. overall in the five-year period we will be replacing 356 motor coaches, typical bus. that is out of a fleet of 511. we will be replacing roughly 141 trolley coaches. that is out of a fleet of

333. then at the bottom there is the pair transit van that we will be replacing that entire fleet over this next five years. one thing to note is vehicles used on the van ness rftb will be included here, they're asterisked here, we will purchase 15 60 foot hybrid motor coaches and 23 60 foot trolley motor coaches. there is the lines that run the different type vehicles, we will need to make two procurements to operator the van ness scheduled project. this is shown to come in sometime in 2014. this gives you a little sense where the funding for those procurements come from. this is specifically for the upcoming procurement of 57 vehicles that was mentioned on the previous

slide. so typically you have the -- how these are funded is we receive federal grants because of limitations on amount of funding available within the region, so we also have to bank together several years of federal grants, then come in for prop k as the match. the other difference in this funding plan is we were successful in getting an fta discretionary grant for state of repair needs. this will specifically be used to replace the fairly old buses running on the annex today, they will have new vehicles that they can provide that service. so overall the funding mix is about 70% federal funds, then 30% is prop k in this

particular procurement. the next slide shows over the five-year period the mix of funding that we will be seeking to procure vehicles that were shown previously. so over five-year period there is 70% from federal services, the prop k is about 17%, consistent with the prop k strategic plan. we also have planned mta bonds and a small piece from state sources. so my presentation so far is on replacement of existing fleet. that is a one-for-one replacement of things we have. we also have in the plan look to the future, look at what the future vehicle needs will be, how do we accommodate growth, how do we plan for significant

projects we are investing in. so there are two types of things that can happen. there can be project specific changes, like the transit effectiveness project or central subway, which would lead to changes in the vehicle mix. the other is the projected growth within the city in terms of the number of jobs and the population within the city. so it is those combination of projects and growth factors that we look at to see how the fleet would need to change over time. so i will show you a few slides on how we build up that analysis. so the last time we estimated our long-term demand we looked out to the year 2030 and we forecast about a 46% increase in travel by transit, so this was the number of boardings that were made within the system. this is going from about 700,000 boardings on a typical weekday to over a

million. so while there is a 40% increase in the number of boardings or trips taken on transit, doesn't translate directly to a 46% growth in the number of vehicles that we operate. there is some capacity in existing system and we look at other ways to maximize efficiency, such as replacing 40-foot with the 60-foot articulated vehicles, where possible to expand capacity without adding significantly without adding to operating and maintenance costs. the next table gives you a breakdown of the current fleet. about 1,000 vehicles and what we will project by 2030. it is about a 20% increase in number of vehicles we will need. there are some fleets that

decrease but overall most of our fleets will be growing. particularly as i mentioned our 60-foot fleets as we increase transit ridership we want to use the most cost-effective as possible. look agent the 60-foot vehicles and some increase in light rail fleet as well. one thing i have noted is these projections are currently used to inform our real estate strategy because purchasing new vehicles alone is only half of the equation. we also have to have a place to store and maintain the vehicles. part of that strategy is how do we manage our existing facilities but also plan for our future, make sure we can accommodate growth we are projecting. so we take the estimates of when the fleet should be

replaced, when expansion needs are anticipated to occur, then we apply a unit cost to the different types of projects. this shows three activities we have in the fleet. one is rehabilitation of the fleet, which would be kind of that midlife overhaul. typically in the transit vehicle about its halfway life there's components the manufacturers recommend you overhaul or replace. that is what's represented primarily in that rehabilitation column. two exceptions are the historic and cable cars, which are assets. we wouldn't replace them like a bus. those fall under rehabilitation, though those projects are similar to replacement of a bus. the second column shows the

replacement costs where we actually take an old vehicle that's run for its entire life. replace it with a new one, then dispose of the old vehicle. that makes up the bulk of our 20-year projected cost. >> what goes into deciding how much of your resources go toward rehabilitation versus replacing vehicles. >> this table here is just showing that unconstrained need. just based on the recommended useful life. the mid-life overhauls and expansion. this hasn't been constrained by available resources. >> seems like when it comes to, you know, making sure our fleet is well-managed and well-maintained, it's probably cost-effective to work on maintaining the existing fleet before purchasing new buses, new vehicles. so what is in the plan term of extending life of the

existing vehicles? i don't see that being as discussed so much today. i think that is a real critical need we have within the mta. >> yes. well, part of the response is that it is partially driven by funding sources. one of the most cost-effective ways to maintain fleet reliability is replace the fleet at the end of its useful life. we have been -- >> based on funding sources or based on what is best practices? >> it is based on best practices. it's informed the policies that guide the funding allocations both at the federal level and at the regional level through fta and through the mtc. in the last several years we have had opportunities to get kind of one-time funding sources for the rehabilitation of our fleet.

we focus those on key components of our light rail vehicles and also a portion of our bus fleet as well. we are looking for opportunities to fund the rehabilitation. they are just not -- they don't come on the regular cycles through the standard transportation bill. they are more one-time opportunities that we look forward to to help support those. >> can you show what federal allocation from ta to mt last year? we have replacement doors then there was something in the wheel base as well. what was -- >> i don't have the specifics about that, but i believe those were for trolley coaches. the trolley coach fleet in particular, which had our lowest mien distance between failure, an industry standard in how reliable your fleet is operating.

our trolley coach fleet was significantly below the standard we had set for ourselves. >> i would like to make sure as we were managing our fleet looking forward that we don't have other emergency allocations moving forward. i think that is something that as we are working on updating the fleet plan, the managed fleet plan, that we work hard to take that into consideration. some of the things we probably didn't fund because we made the allocation from the t.a. last year. >> thank you. the last -- at the bottom here it also shows the expansion needs for all of the modes based on that 220 vehicles. about 580 million. largely driven by the number of light rail vehicles. as i mentioned before, facilities are the other half of this investment. these do not include any enhancements or expansions to our facilities.

those recommendations will be coming out of the real estate strategy i think later this fall. >> what are our facilities of -- any plans for expanding our facilities? >> that is what is coming out of this real estate study going on for the better part of this year. recommendations are formulated now and are supposed to be coming out with those later this fall. so we will have more information about the extent of expansion needs, what can we accommodate within our existing footprints of our existing facilities and understand what the cost of those investments would be over time. >> does the city actually -- the mta actually look at leasing facilities that might not be in the city and county. that considered part of -- on the border there's actually land that might be

available where we don't see a lot of land to increase maintenance facilities in the city. >> i believe that was part of the charge of the real estate vision. i don't have that answer. >> okay. that will come out later when we have the real estate plan before us. >> sure. >> so the next steps, there have been a number of changes to the underlying assumptions used to generate the demand figures i showed you here today, so later this fall we will be updating our projections that the ridership projections will have recommendations from real estate to understand how much growth can we accommodate and how we are going to go about that. we will also be evaluating funding strategies. how do we get to the more staggered procurement where we are buying a smaller number of vehicles versus banking funds and going out

for one large procurement and charged to have an updated fleet management plan toward the end of this year or early next calendar year. and as maria mentioned at the beginning of the presentation we will be coming back next month with an update to the five-year program projects that reflects the strategy i have shown you, as well as our initial request for prop k funds to procure those 57 40-foot hybrid buses, thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any comments, questions? okay. we can go onto public comment. >> in regard to replacement of trolley coaches, one thing they should take into

consideration, the mta should take into consideration is when the fliers were retired and new electric coaches came in, they were having problems with the overhead sort of thing. the new coaches did not -- the overheads on the fliers did not accommodate head problems with the electric coaches, this sort of thing. when you bring in new electric coaches make sure the overheads for these coaches are put in properly so that you don't have a lot of breakdowns. because that's what's been happening lately. as far as the hybrids it would help immensely if you bring in ada compliant hybrids. i have mentioned this before. because on the hybrid they have on the 44, you get on the bus. the first two seats are for wheelchair passengers. if you've got a wheelchair

and someone with a walker or with a cane, they've got to walk about 10, 12 feet before they can finally sit down. that is absolutely ridiculous. also the new coaches, they should also have so what they did with old coaches, they took down the bar next to the fair -- on the fair box. someone who is visually impaired or someone who has problem with the balance cannot hold on to anything after they pay their fair or they show the -- it is a good five feet between the fare box and seat * and i think that is wrong. they should make sure there is something people can hold onto so they can sit safely, thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing no one come forward we will close public comment.

to follow up with mr. ito. just to followup question. i just think it is important that we look how we can maximize the life expectancy of our existing vehicles. want to make sure they are devoting the proper resources to that from the mta with all of our available sources. so i think that is something we'd like to make sure that the mta is cognizant of moving forward. you know, we can see that. maybe an additional plan that they can look at how they are actually doing greater work toward fleet management toward rehabilitation within fleet management i think would be important to see. >> yeah, that is the type of analysis we can incorporate into this update that we will be working on the rest of this year early into next year. >> okay.

thank you. that was item number ten. i would like to take a two-minute break, because we don't have a quorum. we would lose quorum. if i were to step out for a split second, i just need two minutes. be right back. two-minute recess.

we are back in session. we had passed over item five. let's come back to it. we have commissioner olagi, item five mostly represents her district. >> recommended approval of final report of central freeway in octavia study. this san action item. >> good afternoon, commissioners, jeff keller, senior planner in planning division. i will preserve time for your discussion and questions. this item is to present finding and recommendations of the central freeway in octavia circulation study with which the authority has been engaged for some time in partnership with

our partner agencies and the community. it was funded by a planning grant from metropolitan transportation commission a number of years ago. the purpose of the study was really to take a look back since the former central freeway was replaced with new touch stone ramps at market and the boulevard facility, which runs through the heart of hayes valley. recommend near-term improvements and high level look of circulation and what those mean from policy and planning perspective in this key core area of this city which serves so many travel demands, whether they are local or cross-town or regional threats that are accessing the freeway goods movement. high levels of bicycles and pedestrians, lots of interesting opportunities and challenges. just to remind everyone that not only was the central freeway replaced and opened in 2005 with the new facility, octavia

boulevard in addition the board of supervisors approved the market plan which called for several thousand units of new housing. if you have been on upper market you have been seeing that, now that project financing has returned, as well as several thousand new jobs through construction of new office space in the community. given the role of the study, the focus looked at needs in hayes valley, upper market and other parts of octavia area as well as connections to the rest of the city and the region. taking a look at what we know about the needs in the area, as we conducted the needs assessment and developed the articulation of key challenges, the boulevard project brought a lot of benefits from an urban design and land use perspective to the immediate area. we know there's a lot of issues that remain. these center around the high level of traffic that seeks to access the facility via primarily the

open cell and franklin gof couplet pairs. this brings concerns about vehicle complex and motorist behavior, pedestrian safety needs and needs for bicycles. we see areas with sitting transit provided but significant crowding issues. who's traveling in this neighborhood, on a daily basis, quarter million with a destination but fully three times that amount are passing through the neighborhood. these are trips that affect the network but do not necessarily have an origin. these are dominated by auto trips. it is no surprise in some respects because a high majority have trip patterns not well served by transit as well as other patterns. they may not be having an end in downtown. may be from west side or east side or south bay.

this is another presentation showing three-quarters is just passing through. another addition with this installed this functions as a key side to the boulevard via open cell. when it wasn't open that was severed and traffic was reduced significantly. when it was opened traffic grew again on the facilities but did not return to level previously present when original central freeway was installed. some travelers shifted routes, whether to ai jay september corridors such as the laguna san jose corridor, across town to state route 1, 9th and 10th. pulling this out, this is difficult especially given on a citywide basis we have experienced economic growth, population growth, which has obscured some of that impact. one of the key topics was

to inform our countywide planning because so much of local and regional network touches this part of the city. the policy framework was three parts: improve circulation, focus on strategis that will shift travel alreadis to transit and nonmotorized, improve walkability where local trips are dominated by pedestrian, bicyclists and transit riders. under this rubric the city developed a strategy that looks at streets not only in isolation but understood they function as network and collection serving similar travel demands need to be developed as multimodal corridors with some streets playing important roles for surface-running transit; others playing a key role for the dwpment of the bicycle network such as that as we afford with street level we are thinking wholelysing tickly about how the network functions. all this is detailed in the report. i will touch a couple