successful. so let's take a quick look at each of these areas, starting with the first one, content management network. so content and transit data coming into the center and also frankly on the main departure arrival big screen is all managed by a third party, that also manages placements appearing on the kiosks screens. our recommendation is to consider options for bringing data management in-house for quicker response to user issues with the tool to achieve better response time on communication alerts. and really to respond quicker to need for fixes in the software glitches. if we move up to the top of this graphic, the monitors and digital media players, monitors is a big issue as well. the current problem with the monitors are low pixel

resolution devices. these were optimized for placement for large illustrations. they work great at a distance. the problem is when you look at them -- when you look at data that is put on the monitors up close, it's really hard to see. you don't get the fine detail that you need to see maps, to look at small transit information, to look at floor plan graphics. it's just not there. so consider replacing these devices with very high resolution and very bright -- i say bright because these monitors need to -- are used external to the grand hall. right paired with the monitors are digital media players, small boxes, that feed the content directly to the monitors. that content comes from a third party. these media players have to work with monitors and if we replace the monitors, which we need to do, we're going to have to replace half of those media

players as well. so consider the status quo and upgrading both monitors and media players accordingly. third category to the right is transit data dashboard. so the interactive wayfinding application is going to require regularly updated data from transit operators. it's going to be requiring live map data, including traffic conditions and things of that sort. and also up to date internal transit center floor plans, because we want to make sure that users, if they need to get from point a and point b and there is a retail chain, they need to know what is happening on the floor. so a facility of this sort of -- a public facility utilizing and sharing information of this sort typically has a backup house control system that is plugged into the cms, the application, that aggregates information and

filters it and redeploys it smartly to the application. and this tool is recommended for this project as well. the fourth category is mobile. why mobile? well, viewers of public space software systems increasingly expect that they should be able to download these apps to their mobile device. you know, you don't necessarily want to have to go to an interactive tool on site in order to get from point a to point b when you can get the information on your way there, because you're going to be rushing when you get there. another thing to keep in mind, due to the pandemic, people are going to be much more reluctant to touch screens and interact with touch. so we need to do everything to protect our users and give them the best experience and quickest access to the information they need. one last point about the mobile app, it brings up a template as

an option to consider what a regional trip planner might be like, because it will be utilizing this type of information. so that becomes an added concept to consider for the future. the last item is digital wayfinding and navigation services for people with disabilities. the current tool has an option where you can click a button and the control interface moves down toward the floor for people who are confined to wheelchairs. not only is it incompletely implemented, but there is much more to the disabled community than those with wheelchairs, including those with hearing and vision loss and cognitive impairment. our final recommendation is have a research study, what is the full extent of what we can do to

bring this tool to the use of more people in the disabled community? unless there are any questions. i'm going to turn over to adrian and he'll discuss cost estimates. >> thank you, dan. if we could just move to it slide 23, please. thank you very much. so, we provide an outline estimate of mentioned based on the preliminary plan and visual designs. so this is sort of a plus-minus 25% assessment of costs at this stage. we've looked at physical signage. digital information as well as the potential contingency associated with developing those to the next stage. i think it's important to remember that phase one we're anticipating something that could be introduced in a year. so a rapid turnaround.

phase 2 may take longer, obviously, it's a larger investment. and we understand of course that may take more than two years to budget, but it is -- it is in our estimation possible physically within about two years. the costs are laid out there for you. i won't go through them in detail. but just to comment that phase 1 includes detailed design of all physical elements we have shown as visual concepts. the physical adjustments. addition of static, temporary transit information display to replace diagrams on digital kiosks while they're upgraded. phase 2 proposals would be the physical elements for replacement of the signs as permanent items. reengineering replacement of signs. identity signage on the exterior

of the facility. and also the potential of a mobile app development. i think at that point i'll leave it. and back to you, john, to manage questions. happy to take any. thank you. >> thank you so much. so all of us are available for questions if you have them, members. >> chair sesay: thank you for the presentation. do i have any questions from my fellow board members? and thank you. that was very thorough and detailed. >> question. >> m. hursh: jeff, did you have a question? >> j. tumlin: i do.

yeah, let me dive in. so thank you, adrian and daniel for the presentation. this is a topic near and dear to my heart. in my global practice i use the transbay transit center as the best example in the world of failed interagency coordination and deeply anti-customer wayfinding. we do not have a wayfinding system at the transit centre, we have a facility inventory of agency terms. if i'm a customer and i know that i need to get to alameda or sunol, there is nothing there to help me find my destination. so i have a couple of questions. i'll go through all of them because they're related. one question is, can we please eliminate or at least diminish the use of agency logos as our primary wayfinding structure? i love the walter lan dow worm,

but nobody knows what that means. and instead of having there be a worm and a little green circle with fog in the middle of it, can the sign simply say buses to san francisco and buses to north bay? secondly, the k1 panels are really useless. and yet they're very expensive investment and seem to offer a lot of flexibility. i would love thoughts on how to make them useful in the short-term, instead of counterproductive. even putting up just some static maps of how the system works and explanation how the system works would be very helpful in the short run. and then most of my questions are about wayfinding details, like a standard for numbering exists so that the entire

journey train can be explained with google maps. and you know thoughtfully integrated. i'll stop there and hear your response. >> thanks. i'll take this first. i know there was a question about the -- >> sure. >> so if i may, through you, chair, thank you for the question. yeah, i would agree, we have ourselves used the problems as an example of design over -- in other instances. our view generally on transit system wayfinding is that they are often driven by operator identity for historical reasons. and that's not in line with the clientele. the new riders we need to draw into the system don't understand any of that jargon.

so i think you see from the concept design i went through quickly, we are suggesting simple messaging to buses to explain the difference between the bus deck and the bus -- which is incredibly important. and we did encounter people who would spend 20 minutes lost in the building, which is a remarkable amount of time. so i would totally agree with the comments. they are in line with what we suggested. i will mention as well we have also suggested reinstating some static system maps and building facility maps in the building because that's the sort of thing that people look for, it's reliable and visual and increasing online information. dan, any other thoughts? >> before you reply, the idea of bus deck versus bus plaza is nonintuitive. there is a place where buses to the east bay depart from. and there is a different place where buses to san francisco and

the north bay depart from. and then there is a street where buses to the peninsula depart from. and then there is a block away, regional rail, that is not mentioned in any of the wayfinding. >> yep. >> j. tumlin: so, again, rather than focusing on the facility and arbitrary agency terms, to focus on the information that the customer needs. >> i would agree. sorry. when i say differentiate, i don't mean repeat the name. i mean in a way that the customer appreciates. so thank you for that clarification. >> yeah, i would just add to your comments, jeffrey, in the short-term to rebuild -- to do something with the kiosks at this point while development is under way, let's say within the first year, what i can say is besides putting physical maps or

digital static maps in place with the current application that is broken is one option at this point. it will take approximately a year to develop something that is consistent with the needs of the station right now. so a series of static images that we could replace the current application with. other than that, i'm not sure -- i'm concerned about advertising and how that is incorporated into this mix, which is something that -- as well. >> my turn now. first, i'm glad i yielded to jeff, because he was much more articulate than i will be. thank you for the report. thank you to staff for getting it here. it validates what we've been saying before the grand opening. couple of questions. well, a comment first. i appreciate the focus, but i

also -- [inaudible] -- the use of the facility. the more we can drive business through our -- [inaudible] -- what are included with it. the wayfinding for transit makes great points about the buses in the city, to north bay versus the east bay. is this work in the scope? can we just say go? or does this need to be bid out? who is paying for it? and last, probably least important and probably not possible, i don't want to start a witch hunt, but we got it so wrong, is there somebody we can go after for errors and omissions? it seems like such a world class facility with so much attention paid to it. i don't want to start an investigation, but if there is someone we should hold responsible, we should at least try to -- thank you. >> maybe i can talk to one part

of that, because i think a little of that is out of my scope. just to say as partners, our discussion with staff and operators, we certainly acknowledge that this isn't just a transit facility, that it's a mixed use development. and the idea of building directories and maps to explain the other authority in the building is certainly part of what we considered and recommended. john, perhaps you can talk to the other? >> i may defer the last question to my executive director. but with respect to implementation, as we noted, there is no identified funding source, but we're excited about the scope and completion of this project. we do have specifications here that allow us to move pretty smoothly to an implementation of that phase one work. given the scope of the prt,