aspects of this to shorten those timeframes and what can we expect to try to speed up the project schedule? >> i think those are really good questions and i think one of the things we've done is we've been watching the van ness pro/skwroebgt closely and try to use them as kind of the trail braise blazer. this is new territory for san francisco. bus rapid transit is not quite a bus on the street and it's not a dedicated light rail line. it's something different from that and i think the agencies have been working together to try to figure out what that is and i think we've taken lessons from v ness in pulling we think we've gotten their eyes on the project and its details sooner in the process than they have for instance for the van ness

project so we think we're saving time there because we're getting them in tune with what the project details are. one thing is with respect to the process with the van ness project, again, i think because of the newness for both the agencies and the community, they did things kinda sequentially. there was a release of a draft environmental document and then said let's focus on what will be the lpa and so sequentially it was a release of a draft document and then another process to figure out what we want to adopt as the a lpa. in the geary process we're looking to do that in concurrence. as we develop the environmental analysis, we want to start the lpa discussion. we know something about vrt and the

different con configurations. hope is we can compress the time it takes to get to the draft environmental document and selection of an lpa and so we can get to the ends of the environmental process sooner so we'll be ready to start design. we've been talking closely with our counter parts at the sfmta about how to speed up the part of the process they'll be taking over -- the final design process. for instance, one of the things we could do is we could start their work after the selection of an lpa before we get to the certification of an environmental document. they could start that process for final design. we think that could save some time as well. we're definitely looking out for ways we can compress

the schedule. >> and i appreciate there is some thinking on this. is there a written analysis or have you form /alized what you're trying to do to make sure you're standing to your schedule? >> we can provide a written process. right now we're trying to build off the momentum from the mexico city brt trip. we're working with your offices and trying to meet with mta and director risk and this is a conversation about how can we support the city, how to work together to make this faster and i think as soon as we nail that down we'll be happy to document that and hold us all accountable. >> thank you. i'm personally, on behalf of my constituents and very concerns add /th-bt

what i think is most frustrating to many of us is there are often project schedules and they slip and it's difficult for for me to find what those original project schedulings were. there doesn't seem to be any accountability for holding project teams to those schedules. i'm not pointing i thinkers at the ta in particular. i think this is an issue throughout the city. but how can we do everything we can to minimize our budget and maximize when we'll be able to deliver when we tell them we'll be able to. i look forward to hopefully a briefing in the coming weeks and month, along with supervisor mar an others. >> thank you. commissioner

wiener. >> thank you. i'm going to be slightly less diplomatic than commissioner chew. so we are the ta, the authority awe prove the geary quarter brt in may 2007? >> correct. >> that was over six years ago. how long did it take to build up to that approval vote in may 2007 by the authority? >> predates me just a bit so i need to rack my brain. >> probably a few years? >> few years, yeah. i think -- to complete the -- two years. /stpwhr and >> and when did the ta first get involve in terms of getting this process started for geary brt. >> i think it was with the 2004

/propb k. >> so we're at about nine years now of this process for geary brt building up to the feasibility study, approving that and now six years later? i'm just -- eight, nine, ten -- you know, that's a long time. and we are -- and i say this as -- i'm an intensely strong supporter of geary brt as i am with van ness and i hope many more brts and i don't want to compare us to mexico city from an idea in somebody's head to the -- it took three years, you know. i understand this california, this is the u.s., we love process here and things take a lot longer than they do

elsewhere, but it's one thing to say three years from idea to project delivery is not realistic here but to have a situation where we're nine years into a project and we have really nothing to show for it except for ongoing analysis. that is very frustrated to me and i think to a lot of people. and with vanness brt and i think now it's possibly being turned over to the mta -- so it can take [inaudible] eventually, you know, build the project. i'm being a little sarcastic but it's very frustrating. and so this contract -- it's 6 million dollars total and that is for

environmental analysis and preliminary conceptual drawings. how much of that is for environmental seqa analysis. how much of that 6 million is for seqa work? ballpark. >> approximately 2 million dollars. >> this is a 2 million dollar eir. i think that that is absolutely ridiculous that we're spending 2 million dollars on an eir. i think it shows how broken our system is. that is an enormous amount of money that's not going into implementation but going to environmental analysis. and i guess the question is, i know that geary brt is more

controversial than van ness brt and i don't begrudge anyone their opinion about whether brt on geary is good or bad. my sense is that -- this is true with a lot of things in san francisco. instead of saying we're going to have a public process, we'll delineate it's going to be a six month process or one year or two or three year process or whatever we define it to be and we'll get feedback and a collaborative community discussion, we allow the community process to go on [inaudible] if someone comes forwards and says i have an issue it sort of restarts everything and i -- as we can see through the extreme drama around the very modest seqa appeal legislation that i did which is nothing more than set deadlines for when people have

to file appeals and that has caused, as you know, a sig miff cant controversy. i know it's hard in san francisco not to have an open ended process, but to have process that goes on years and years and years, i just think that we don't do -- it's a disservice to the taxpayers and to the riders of san francisco that we allow this combination of unended analysis, unending public process to take what should be a several year project and turn it into a 10, maybe 15 or 20 year project to deliver one brt line on one thorough fair in be san francisco and to spent millions of dollars on environmental review, which i just don't think is warranted. i think an eir does not need to cost that much. we're not talking about the transbay plan or something like that. so i'm

-- i don't accept this process as being the way we should be doing transportation in san francisco and i -- i can't support this item. >> you touched on [inaudible] mull symposiums and it's a big problem, not just here but in a lot of places. i want to recap some of these issues [inaudible] large scale with brt represents in the transbay type projects but things should go faster. clearly seqa is a huge area of this. i do wanna note in the prior presentation mark indicated that does seem to be growing momentum. i

think it's critical to push upon that as well as making sure that california implements but there are a number of things we can do and i think what underscores this is the project delivery pipeline is weak in san francisco. being able to push forward at an effective pace multiple projects at the same time instead of doing here's the central subway, we should be able to do with la and other places do is they have a whole self of projects that i've moving forward in tandem. they have a much bigger pool of capable project managers. we need more of them. much of the

dollars we spent so far haven't just been for seqa. [inaudible] but that needs to get done anyway. >> just to be clear -- and i've been a critic of the mta's project delivery system on small and big projects, but this project has not been turned over to the mta yet, but it has not been turned over and before we even turn it over to the mta for them to do the more detailed design, we'll have been spending 6 million dollars on environmental review and on conceptual designs so that -- it's frustrating, just raises a question for me. i'm not trying to dump on the ta stuff 'cause you are some of the most

highly competent folks around. it's about the way we do projects in san francisco which is deeply dysfunctional. >> [inaudible] we're all doing this together, whether we're leading [inaudible] we all have to work together on this and the system as a whole needs reform and that's one of the things [inaudible] one of the outcomes [inaudible] is if we can [inaudible] either public or just city staff type symposiums or working sessions just to really focus on this issue and make some mediate reforms both at the small and big scale projects. >> at least with the better market street man, which we've been critical of the lack of interagency coordination and the credible slowness and expense of the projects at least with market street, it's

just incredibly more -- it's a radical reenvisioning of what mark market street is. geary brt is not that. it's not a simple design, but we know what brt is. we know -- it is not the same level of complexity and nebulousness as reenvisioning market street is. thank you. >> any other -- commissioner chew. >> so to understand, you're not planning to support this motion? >> i'm not going to support it. >> question to the ta because, you know, i think many of us --

i share supervisor wiener's concerns. if you weren't able to move this forward, that may have some repercussions too. what can yo do you to to give us more comfort that this project is on the right track? >> i think the best thing to do is [inaudible] comments we made earl yes. [inaudible] up to director resting and to sit down and hash out and agree to hope flip and accelerated /sked /skwraoeul jewel for the project and to document that and how we're going to get there. not just throughing out a date, but do we need dedicated staff, do things in parallel, so forth. >> i want to join supervisor wiener in stressing /ou important that is so a couple possibilities i'm open to is if we want to continue this item for a month or two to allow that to happen -- open to that. beyond that, if we're forced to take an up or down vote

today i'm not sure what i would do because i want to make sure everyone involved in this project is taking this seriously and will make sure that we've got a plan to deal with this, but i looking for some feedback on how we can make sure that happens >> one of the challenges we have -- as you know august coming up so if the commit''s uncomfortable, i'm suggesting we move this to the full board without recommendation and that will give us about two weeks. >> why don't we move this forward recommending a no vote up to the full board and we'll wait to hear what you come back with in a couple weeks. in a week? is that right? >> july 23 is the full board meeting. >> just a minute. are you done with your idea? okay. >> what are the chances that we're going to get meaningful, new information within two weeks. >> we can get some information

but i can't commit without talking to director [inaudible]. >> i would consider putting this forward with a /tpheg tiff recommendation and maybe we can get some more information. >> you indicated you had some concern about going into the august recess. what exactly is the constraints on the timeline you're concerned about? >> i need to see if chester can add more if we need additional cash capacity for the jacob's contract and how much cash we have continued to work through recess if we don't take this action. >> are we not in a position to suspends work until we get some clarification? this project's taking forever already with the... >> what's another month after nine years? >> i know this is [inaudible] a: >> you could suspends, but in the meantime, you know, we are continuing to work with

commissioner mar and trying to finds a way to kick some speed into the project right now. >> let' see if there's any -- is there a motion or something... >> i guess i'll reiterate my motion... >> sorry, we'll take public comment before. >> hank you staff, thank you for your presentation and entertaining our comments. i'd like to open up for public comment now please. come forward. i'm very familiar with what's been going on with geary corridor for over 26 years since 1986. the geary brt is supposed to be -- having worked on prop k and having the

priority, having the funding through brt in a priority three category, which means it can be moved up, the geary brt is supposed to be light rail ready [inaudible] that were finalized back in 1989 and 1995 on the height light rail that i worked on. you gotta remember it's also with the central subway that there's going to be a spur at union square at geary and in a couple years we'll have to go before voters to reauthorize for prop k

because the only project that hasn't been brought forward is the geary light rail system and i suggest that you act accordingly. i've told you before, do your homework, read the final report of the geary transit task force that was finalized in 1990 and also the 95 filing report on the geary light rail system and the puc quoted back then. it's the only way to alleviate traffic [inaudible] is called a light rail system, but it went nowhere. think about that before you have this go forward. >> okay. thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on item number eight? seeing no more public comment, it is closed. colleagues, i'd like to notate a motion. >> the motion that i suggested is we pass this to a full board

with a do not pass recommendation in part to ensure that we will hear from staff in the next two weeks what conversations have happened and what can concretely change to help us speed this project along. that would be our motion. >> let's have a roll call /sroegs vote for in motion. >> chew, i, cohen i, /tpaeurl i tang i, commissioner wiener, i. commissioner which you's motion passes. >> thank you. are there any other items? >> item number nine, recommend the reward of a three year contract in the university of maryland [inaudible] case study [inaudible] terms and non material contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> thank you.

>> i'm robert traytive engineer with the [inaudible] on page 111 of your packet. as you know the transportation authority has served as coupon so are with the california department of transportation for the presidio parkway project. project is being built in two phases -- the phase one contract which substantial lyly we are

organizing it around six key objects [inaudible] and maintenance of the [inaudible] identify the factors that determine the effect /t*euness of each method, identify and

analyze advantages of each method, reach a con /khaougs as to which method reached better results in this project and best method /tp-f for future projects. academic institutions only we believe this was important for three reasons. increasing the independence and /kr-blt of the results both to the public and agency that need to make decisions of this type. we're

seeking recommendation to award this to your contract to

university of maryland in an amount not to exceed to conduct this case study. happy to answer any questions. /tkpwh thank you. i think this is a great idea. i know there's been a lot of some controversy around some public private partnerships with t 3, particularly relating to [inaudible] drive so it seems to me this study will be useful not in terms of a back ward look in this particular project but in helping you form future decisions here and elsewhere about whether to proceed with that private partnership so i think this was a terrific idea and i'm glad it's happening. >> we agree and are happy to have found university partners who think this is a great opportunity to contribute to knowledge in the field. >> commissioner /tpaeurl. >> just a quick question. in terms of university of maryland

it /tkaouz seem kind of random. can you provide me with a little bit of background? >> university of colorado has similar experience. /ph*dz m.d. also is partnered with public policy professor to provide additional background and evaluation of the results. both universities intend to actually send graduate students to out here for minimum one semester to assist in the data collection and interviews of the project participants so they will have some on site capability for the main parts of the study. >> thanks. >> any other speakers? i too, um, was surprised the university of maryland being

awarded -- potentially awarding this contract. was there an rfp project? was there a competitive bid process. >> there was. we solicited /staeupltds of interest with qualifications. we re/saoefed six of those from universities all around the country. then we followed that up by inviting all six which we found qualified to submit proposals. >> which were the six that responded? >> i don't have the full list, but i can recall that we had maryland and colorado as a partnership, u washington partnered with -- stan /tpard university and i can't recall the other three, but i can get you that information. two of the teams submitted formal proposals for the universities i understand that the creation and the submission of the proposal is not something taken lightly. both proposals were

considered excellent and we chose this one on the basis of its more fleshed out plan for their data collection and investigation. >> and what was the criteria used to evaluate each of the proposals and who saturday on this body? >> we had three staff members are the authority on the body including lee. and we had advisory participants from arep who did some of the initial analysis of whether a p 3 made sense in this case. also a member of cal-trans as an advisory panel member. we hooked at the comprehensiveness of the proposal, how clearly it related to our objectives and that's in order to make sure that the deliverables that we think will be of use to