important. i spent 18 hours on a plan and bugging him about the grants and we're in the middle seats and six and a half ride from dc and all he did was smile so i want to say thank you for believing in us and going after the two grants and everyone thank you very much. it's our absolute pleasure. yay giants. yay 49ers, the commissioner is here as well and thank you for being here. i really appreciate it.

test test test test test test test .

>> i can also address some of the upcoming, there are a total of 4 procurements planned between this year and next to procure about 150 vehicles, so. >> there were a lot of questions. your first question had to do with the life of the vehicles. >> i think there was basically one que. the question was we purchased the vehicles in 2006, knowing they were originally manufactured in 93, the fta says there's a calculation that is 12 years. >> yes. >> in terms of the lifetime of the vehicle. we purchased them in 2006, how long did we expect them to last? >> that's a good question. we're actually dealing with this with a couple fleet procurements we're going to

have upcoming. they are typically large procurement contracts and the vehicles come in a couple every year. a motor coach vehicle has a useful life for 12 years, a trolley coach has a useful life of 15 years and then an rrlb of 25. the clock starts ticking when the vehicle comes in, then a couple more come in and the clock starts there. you bring up a really good issue because then it gets to when is it maintained, when does the --. >> i was just talking about 2006. >> if it's 2006, it would be 18. >> i was just asking about the ones we purchased in 2006 that were built in 93, we bought in 2006, maybe you weren't here at the time, what was the life expectancy? was that a good decision for the mta to make,

was it one that we had to make under the circumstances and is it policy to do that in the future? that's my question. >> i will give you the information that i have. the fleet you are referring to is the nobe fleet, that happened before i got here and those were purchased, my understanding, through ec transit working on some additional vehicles and options that they had. i think at the time it was useful because we were looking to upgrade our vehicles at the time and get newer vehicles on the fleet sooner, in the fleet sooner. is that our policy to do that? no. we're taking the opportunity now and going back to a normal procurement cycle. i think the nobe fleet is smaller than our normal fleet, normal is 200 vehicles. policy question would be would we approach it that way in the future? probably not. we bought them during the useful life so now within the region they are eligible for

replacement funds and we're doing so. >> i would think based on today we would actually make a decision to buy new vehicles. >> now we're buying new vehicles, they will have their 12 year useful life and then we will replace them. this nobe neat has an unusual life. in the future would we do that? no. >> good morning, commissions, (inaudible) executive director. i don't have perfect recall on this, but i was around when this purchase happened. >> i think there was some controversy around it, too. >> the issue was mta was in a pinch in terms of complying with the clean diesel rules that we were dealing with at the moment. there was an outcry about not deploying any more, not buying any more

diesel buses that weren't absolutely clean diesel busses and there was a fairly long lead time to procure new vehicles. so that couldn't be done in a rush. so what was settled upon at the time was to purchase those busses that were used vehicles from ec transit as was presented to the board had some useful life left in them and it certainly wasn't the 12 years of a new bus. so there was the idea of purchases the busses at a reasonable price and spend a little money rehabing them before they went into service so they could last. now the key question you are asking, which is how many years, i don't recall an exact number. i think the idea was that those busses were going it last a good part of a decade, you know, 7 or 8 years, which would track with needing to replace them now because you couldn't really expect them, even rehabbed busses could not last the full 12 years of a new

unit. i think we are on track in terms of seeing this procurement happen now to replace vehicles that weren't new when they were put in service to begin with, but they served their function because the board had an imperative responding to the community's concerns about using dirty diesel and the idea that at some point we were going to make that switch and that was the moment to do it. and so mta responded to that in a cae ative way and got us a bridge solution and now we're in a different era where everything that is procured is a clean diesel bus, electric or something else. >> okay, i appreciate that. and i do recall there was a lot of pressure around developing cleaner diesel busses. the question for now is how are we going to be purchasing vehicles in the long-term. you don't see ourselves in a pinch

buying busses, purchasing busses that aren't going to last very long because we're already --. >> no, it's a good question. i believe the environment is better now because a lot of the evolution we were hoping would happen in terms of the technology has already happened. you know, we're half a decade later. the issues that were still being debated about benefits and costs of clean diesel have gone away and the industry as a whole in the country and the entire north american continent has moved forward to procure these sorts of vehicles and so the only real issue that i can see for the mta's procurement of vehicles is sort of a recuring issue, which is how taylored is our spec going to be, our speck any cal specification for the vehicles? that's been an issue in the past. the more bells and whistles you put on a vehicle, then you need the

manufacturer to stop the process, retool the assembly line and produce your vehicle and at that point, you know, if you have a lot of specifications that are outside of the shelf model you end up paying a big premium for that. but i've seen a shift over the years toward a more standard vehicle because i think the mta understands the significance of that cost. what i can tell you is this: when the really massive fleet renovation happened at the turn of the century, really, i think it was in 2000 or 2001, prop b at the time leveraged a fleet renovation of about half a billion dollars, lrv's, diesel busses, trolley busses. there was a 20 percent increase in performance as a result of that over the next couple of years because you had vehicles on the street, you had fewer

breakdowns, so that is a fundamental function of the prop k program and there's a very large amount of money there to help mta do that because that is one of the clearest benefits that we have from the sales tax is to maintain a fairly new fleet so that the incidents of breakdowns and the need for the vehicles to spend time in the shop is minimized. it's capitalization of a maintenance issue, but it is a important, very important investment decision that's made. so we're supportive, of course, of the item today and we don't have any major doubts about the need for those vehicles to be replaced because, as i said earlier, they weren't really new to begin with when they were procured. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sorry for the interruption. . >> okay, so the total cost of this procurement is about $55

million dollars and the $16 million dollars of prop k would leverage almost $40 million in federal funds to mta the new busses are going to be present cured through a state of minnesota consortium so what this will do is allow mta to tag on to existing contracts that have already been established so there will not be a separate rfp process or procurement process, mta would join the consortium and then negotiate with the vendor to make the vehicle specific to san francisco's need and they anticipate this will save about 9 months off the procurement schedule for this contract, which then translates into vehicles being in use as soon as may of 2013, with the final delivery of the vehicles an advertise ticipated in august. the board allocated $400,000 in july to the design phase of this project and at that time

there were a few conditions put on that allocation. one was a presentation from the mta on its fleet management plan and this is the presentation that was given last month. another one of the conditions was that mta provided details on its planned procurement over the next couple years. so this ppa request for a comprehensive amendment is what you have in front of you. what this amendment does is it reprograms approximately $40 million dollars that has been programmed but unallocated in the 5 year period of these 5ypp, so that's from 2009-10 to 2014-15. the category was very heavy loaded with programing in the first 3 years so it's essentially shifting out that programming to the final two

years of this period. we will be submitting a second phase of this reprogramming to about 11 1/2 million for the vehicle rehab projects and so those would primarily be their historic streetcars and cable car projects. and just to touch briefly on the reason that the procurements have, the schedule has shifted to the last couple of years, there are a few reasons including that mta can now align these procurements with its new fleet management strategy to do smaller procurements on a more regular basis so that they don't have all of their vehicles needing major replacement or major midlife overhauls as exactly the same time. also now we know the schedule with the van necessary vrt project. this project was

originally to procure vehicles for the brt vehicles. we now know this is not the case and the brt vehicles will be procured with the next two procurements in 2013. that concludes my presentation and staff prosecute agencies are here as well. >> colleagues, any comments or questions? okay, we can go on to public comment. thank you for your presentation, miss laflor. okay, seeing no one come forward we will close public comments. colleagues, can we have a motion? we will move this forward with recommendation and without objection. next item, please. >> no. 5, update on traffic calming program revision, this is an information item. >> good morning, mr. chair, community members, principle planner for the authority.

so in february of this year, february of 2012, the authority board allocated just over $160,000 in prop k funds to the mta to do a comprehensive revision of their traffic calming program. this included revising objectives to the program and making corresponding revisions to their methodologies to their evaluating projects that actually receive the treatments. just a little bit of context, there's 3 main tracks in the traffic calming program. what you are going to see a presentation on is a revision of the local neighborhood track, which is the bulk of the traffic calming program. here to get your input is an information item on that track, they will be back in december-january with a full comprehensive amendment to the schools and arterial portion, then the board will approve the changes to the program or

consider the changes to the program through a comprehensive amendment to the 5 year prioritization program and that should also be coming in the january program. this is kind of the first step but it is a large revision to the way neighborhood traffic calming is currently done. with that, i will hand it over to mta staff. >>. >> hi, i'm mirian sell, i'm with the livable streets department at mta, i'm here to talk to you about our local traffic calming revision. traffic calming is really critical to the mission of mta, both in terms of safety, we know the speeds vehicles are going really impacts the degree and severity of collisions take place and also whether or not

those collisions take place and also an important factor in livability. we know streets that are calmer in terms of vehicle traffic are more likely to have pedestrians and bicycles using them for their travel. which we know is important to the board. for the revision process, two of the main things we're looking into are balancing priorities between the different tracks and different types of traffic calming in the city and making sure that the way we prioritize and select projects meet the stated goals of the city and the sfmta and we're also looking into the process efficiency and making sure our delivery makes the best use of our limited resources. as has been mentioned, we currently have 3 tracks, the arterial and commercial, local and residential streets and schools. the local and residential program is application based and we get a lot of interest from residents around the city. over the years we have really focused most of our traffic calming dollars on that local category so as you can see in this