the leadership that will hopefully revicinity the japan town and fill more district to look at the tunnel and hopefully close the gap that has divided those neighborhoods for 40 or 50 years. i'm aggressively pushing a new deadline with the support of president chiu for the gary b r t not for 20/20 as planned as discussed in the past but to open in 2018. so moving those issues and items forward without dlie is critical for that 94 now a aggressive deadline. so those projects will provide a new spine or backbone to the city with the vanessa and expand

the transit and bart. but the bus rapid transit systems as a number of those in administratrix city are an important way to connect up. i appreciate the sharp criticisms that supervisor wiener has brought up to help me and many that so for the the b a r t. so we can complete the virile report and fully develop now a alternatives has so much promise i hope you'll please support that. join me many helping this to move forward >> thank you. we haven't called those items. >> item 19 increase the professional contract by 9

million plus not to exceed 8 hundred million for a environmental rapid gary project and the environmental report slash statement and also the modification of the project. appropriate the m k prop funds for environmental analysis and help the gary project environmental report slash statement. the cash flow distribution schedule and the 5 year program. in the an action item >> very good. i want to thank commissioner mar for his comments and ed wiener

during the finance commission. it is a big complex topic and there's plenty of room for improvement. we intended today to focus on some high-level all the times to you to stand up and get the benefits to the folks on the ground. those are based on a meeting with had with the director of mta last friday. we have a presentation and we have the day-by-day project team here as well. during the past it is very beneficial to have a large number of board members really putting the spotlight because project delivery is effective at

the staff level and those are things we need to advocate but to have the clear board accountability is something we've looking forward >> before you decide to speak we have comments as well commissioner weaning. >> thank you. has been noted i'm commissioner and commissioner chu has raised some concerns at the finance committee. i'm a huge supporter of bart and i hope, of course, b r ts going forward. it's a key parted of the future in improving our transit system i'd like to have a wider transit of buses but b r t should be

quicker way to deliver rapid service and to be converted into the future. we've seen this that instead of being what it should be a less expensive and quicker way of delivering service we're seeing unending process and more and more money being put into the market analysis. and this is money to go into the environmental process as opposed to get to the construction and getting it delivered. so we're not being asked to pit money into the creation of b r t we're asking to put more money after a decade of evaluation and analysis before we get to any kind of project deliver process. that's a really significant frustration.

we've seen, you know, this is a boarder project delivery. we've been getting many analyze about more delay. it doesn't serve our city well, when they have the leadership around the b r t when those projects - they just drag on and on and we sfend more money on the process. it's been a decade and it's completely unacceptable. my question is this is a nice power point presentation why should we - and i guess it states we're going to trim two years off the delivery why should we have confidence this

is going to actually happen he in terms of that shorter deliver process. given the challenges that mta has had and in delivering the projects in a time effective way why should we be confident this is real. that's a question to staff. through the chair >> that's an excellent quo. basically you're saying why should you trust us >> let's be clear this isn't about the mta this is a boarder issue why should i trust the process in general. this is not a hit or criticism directed at the city staff >> if you feel compelled to

stand up. but back to this particular project we also at that time, point have had the ability to absorb some of the lessons and we have some understanding of the rapid bus transit so we you shouldn't have to have the same discussions oh, again. another part that will go towards the credibility this is not a rocket scientist case. we can start to get some of the improvements only the ground and that will build more conversations we can deliver and tim can speak to i know there was a presentation speaking to

the mayor's office that they're under talking to deliver the larger and small projects and a director for the strategic planning. i think supervisor wiener and other directors you've made the point very clear. we're acutely aware of this issue. we're looking at ways to improve the project delivery. but you're correct the environmental analysis has taken lee a long time. there was a decision made that should be noted a few years back to not do the improvements so we can get the larger scale projects out the door. now in behind sight we need to have the incremental

improvements to bring in incremental improvements and at the same time deliver our projects better. there's a very rich process in san francisco. and working with that rich process has had it's challenges. the more it is up consonant o front we'll get a better picture. but i want to stress we're working very closely with the transportation authority to make the best way forward. we believe we have a process to improve the project gary. i'm happy to go more into detail after the presentation >> chairman. how - and i know that the mta wants to improve the project

timelines. it's not just a challenge with the larger projects but the smaller ones. it's sometimes very brain damaging to move projects forward >> yeah. >> and that's for small not hard ones that have a lot of community support without a lot of controversy. so in terms of confident levels that once the mta finishes the analysis this is a realistic timeline. given the time it will take another 5 years to deliver the project is too long but but why should we be confident. and in the context the mta was prepared to force that project

to be side lanes and it wouldn't be beneficial and mta was barreling in that districts and because of some creativity thinking we were able to come up with a resolution for the center lanes. given 3 history and this history why should we believe it will be deliverable >> we see it differently. we work very closely to come up with the center lane proposal and to speed it up. while it wouldn't get you the full beneficiary it will get i incremental improvements. the community pressures that

will reduce the time benefits we came up with the proposal together and i actually that is not my recollection of why they were pushing for the side lanes it was for some operational reasons so my recollection is different >> we'll let that one pass. we feel more confident because we've had increased the training and set aside project managers to take on the side street proochdz. we have the project that was a rail project but we made it a complete street project we improved the bicycle lanes as well as and that came in under budget. when we put our heads together being very clear about the scope and schedule and actually having

the budget to deliver we can deliver on time but when the expectations are not clear we have those discussions oh. i can list you a dozen projects from a simple baseball bat to other similar projects >> i'll stoney hope that mta is moving in a better direction in terms of project delivery. it's just been a real challenge on a love issues. and i won't get into the project the church and mta refuted to correct it >> i want to join the colleagues. i like many of us in this body

have been a long time supporter but it's embarrassing how we're not able to deliver the process on time and we shouldn't have us hold up the projects to facilitate the meetings we've heard over the past week. i understand that finally mta and go others are getting together and how they can deliver their projects better. why should we not continue this item to really understand what exactly you guys are going together but from our prospective this is work that should have happened out our intervention and i have concerns if we're not watching this will continue so explain to us and

assure us in the coming weeks that this will be dealt with in a better way and what kind of deliveryables will we receive to make sure our trains are running on time >> yeah. it maybe that some of this b will come out in the presentation. but your first question was why not defer this until the end meeting. the project will keep moving by the other way it is slowing down the consultant work on the environmental won't sped up is the process. i think you're right about watching this closely. one of the elements we had is making sure we do regular

meetings to the mta board on this project. additional at sometime we should have a meeting >> i think that's a great idea. >> very good commissioner campos. >> actually, i wanted to thank president chiu to help to pull together the mta with the ta and this process with the single team approach is the right one to move projects forward more speedily in addition to a a lot of the other sessions that will come up in the presentation. my understanding of the b r t whatever it's at its sometimes much more simple than the gary boulevard b r t with the tunldz. i know that a lot of the

planning into the environmental analysis is much more complex. i think it's my understanding that this funding for the engineering group and the xhauch design is in and out out of the budget it's only being phased in itself a phased approach so it's not an additional amount of money but it's important for the complexity like the project gary boulevard the tunlz that are divided differently. i urge the colleagues to think about this. that is a phased funding system. there's great things going on i'm happy we're discussing that. but i think detailing this would be harmful and we need the

environmental report done and the approach that the transportation staff and i thank the gentleman foreig here this will help to engage the neighborhoods to be a part of the process and i'm for that process as well >> i think the idea to join mta and ta meeting to get the projects moving more quickly and i'll be very brief. i think that the issues that are raised are important but i think they go beyond this individual project. the issue of coordination and project delivery is something else we've been discussing and so i think that if we're going to start talking about that we should have a larger discussion about project delivery period. i think with respect to this

project this project has moved forward in the right direction. i feel and understand the frustration by it's a frustration that i think should be focused on the larger issue of the overall transportation agencies within the city. i think that the joint meeting make sense and i actually also think that having a discussion about sort of who owners the project and who is ultimately responsible if something goes wrong should be a part of the discussion because sometimes you, have too many cooks in the kitchen but i don't see any

delays. thank you very much. commissioner weaning you have any other comments >> i appreciate the work that's gone on over the past two weeks to get this back on track in terms of the timing. my confident level is not high i will support this today. i don't want to cut off our notices despite our faces and denying the funding or detailing it as frustrating as it is we're in the phase of this project detailing it will not help the project. but i want like the better market street plan i think we do need to as a board start exercising some very hands on consistent oversight and regular report backs in terms of what

progress has been made are we on track? is the timeline holding? i think we're going to have to see that over the next 6 months. but i will support the time overview item today >> i'm glad we want the project to move. so i think we're ready for you and a well, thank you very much for that set up oar i'm the director for the capital projects. i participated in the meeting with director reiskin and the san francisco municipal transportation agency. i'm going to talk about the recommitment and management efforts that the two agencies intend to take. i have with me the mta project manager and should there be any

technical questions david will be happy to answer those and, of course, we have wretched e representatives from mta here today to answer additional questions. just by way of set up weighing we'll menace the gary corridor. more than 050 thousand corridor riders a day are identified by mta. it's a prop k cased specifically identified within our expenditure plan. the document began work identifying the 3 projects. since then and part of the reason for the growing complexity of the project is a sort of a variation on alternative 3 the center lane bus rapid transit project.

this involves a consolidated approach that used both the limited and local service essentially operating the same facility. the goals that have come out of the meeting with mta and reflecting the urgency that the commissioners have communicated to us is to certify the document and have a full transmitted service by 2018. the key, of course, is how do we get there. so where what are the means to achieving those goals. we think one of the most useful is to take vague of the federal map legislation 3 will help us

to identify the local identification earlier and keep it within the document. a significant amount of effort was exerted in the vanessa document after the circulation and incorporating that into the final document we can save a significant amount of time. we think the project will allow early deployment of side running improvements in the inner gary and those could be deployed that eventually we'll have the service provided peril. mta and ta are embracing the idea so the people can see the improvements. and mta is very focused on the

low cost improvements immediately fund the certification of the environmental document. in fact, mta has announced the goals by mid 2014 in the mid gary area. looking at oiflg a locally identified alternative in the document there are a couple of options that we think have the potential of becoming the alternative. and their depektd here. it would include the option to provide a filed at fillmore in order to reconnect the community that maybe as much of a land use

and community issue as a transportation issue by those optioned will allow this to be done. side lynn b r t would be provided and the center lane b r t to 22 avenue and a consolidated bus service further to the west. other maples of accelerating deliver including looking at number one traditionally means of delivering the project. maria mentioned the designed risk and we've done that on the vanessa project we we can the same thing can be done on gary. we're confident we know what the alternative is and that's the time to begin van the work.

we're looking at the non traditional means of construction. the construction management guaranteed management these are variations of construction methods that are generally proven to speed project delivery and they tend to be a little bit better of job allocation. we're also looking at strengthening our project management approach. we're moving forward with integrating the authority into a single team. i will say that the representative and team members from the two agencies meet twice a week on the project and we're seeing the people who are participating in the project more and more becoming a chief

team. one of my falsifies is when we reach a joint decision to try to move on. the same thing in project delivery you only make the decision once there's a tendency to try to recycle back and that's a speed killer. as maria suggested we're looking at to have the two agency require and receive a periodic updates that look at scheduled compliance and budget compliance. as part of the formation of looking at the procedures as disputes occur they don't fetter at the staff level and remain

unsolved. and that the form escalation has form deadlines so the project can move forward. and lastly we're working with mta to streamline the hand off once the environmental document is ready to go further. and that concludes the presentation. i'll be happy to answer any other questions >> colleagues any comments or questions? >>. okay. thank you week go on to public comment on this item or those items. >> good morning. i'm jackie sax i'm a member of the citizens advisory committee i've been