Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 13

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 13"

Grant Tyler
5 years ago
Views:

1 1 AGENDA Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 13 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 27 th, 2009 Location: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor 5:00 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order 5:05 2. Adoption of Minutes of the September 8 th, 2009 Meeting ACTION* 5:10 3. Project Status and Schedule INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to update the Committee on the Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS schedule and status. 5:20 4. Federal Transit Administration Annual Small Starts Report -- INFORMATION* The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a number of grant programs to support transit capital expansion as authorized by Federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law in August SAFETEA-LU established a new transit capital investment program, Small Starts, which is intended to fund relatively inexpensive, cost-effective transit capital projects. The Authority was awarded entry into the Small Starts pipeline of projects in 2007, receiving a high rating for project cost effectiveness. The project team provides required annual reports to FTA on project progress towards construction. For this year s annual report, the project team re-estimated the project costs based on revised engineering designs, station platform designs, and other new information developed in support of the EIR/EIS. The 2009 annual report includes no significant updates to the proposed project funding plan; Van Ness Avenue BRT is eligible for up to $75M in Small Starts funds, to be matched by up to $20M in Proposition K sales tax funds. Also updated this year was the Project Management Plan (PMP), which provides information on the project implementation timeframe (including the timetable for vehicles procurement), and progress towards final design and construction activities. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. 6:20 5. BRT Vehicle Procurement and Funding Update INFORMATION In support of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Annual Small Starts report, SFMTA updated the plan for procuring, funding, and testing BRT vehicles for Van Ness Avenue. SFMTA plans to replace existing 60 trolley coaches with a combination of 60 BRT trolley and diesel hybrid motorcoaches to operate Van Ness Avenue BRT. The vehicle purchase will be funded by FTA formula funds for vehicle replacement and Small Starts, matched by Proposition K sales tax funds. The purpose of this item is for SFMTA to update the committee the current plans for designing, procuring, and funding Van Ness Avenue BRT vehicles. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. 6. Public Comment 7:00 7. Adjourn * - Materials Attached O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Meeting 13 Agenda.doc

2 2 DRAFT MINUTES Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 11 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 14 th, 2009 Location: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order The committee was called to order by Committee member Marla Taylor at 5:10 p.m. Van Ness CAC members present were Marla Taylor (moderator), Michelle Brant, Dave Goggin, Jason Henderson, Steve Kendrick, Lawrence Li, Henry Pan, and Howard Strassner. Authority and City staff members and consultants present were Rachel Hiatt and Margaret Cortes of the Authority; Paul Bignardi of SFMTA; Frank Sylvester of SFDPW; Sue Black and Raul Mosuela of SFPUC; and Kim Franchi of Parsons Transportation Group. 2. Adoption of Minutes of the July 14 th, 2009 Meeting ACTION * Howard Strassner moved to approve the minutes. Henry Pan seconded. There was no public comment. The item was approved unanimously. 3. Project Status and Schedule INFORMATION Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the item overview. There was no public comment. Henry Pan suggested that a future outreach event should include presenting the project to an assembly of Galileo High School students. Ms. Hiatt stated that this activity could be incorporated in the outreach plan supporting the circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS. 4. Schedule Remaining Van Ness CAC Meeting Dates for 2009 ACTION* Rachel Hiatt presented the item, per the staff memorandum. Henry Pan moved to adopt the meeting schedule. Dave Goggin seconded. There was no public comment. The item was approved unanimously. 5. Lighting Technologies Follow-up for Trolley/Light Poles Replacement Project INFORMATION Frank Sylvester of SFDPW presented the item. Howard Strassner asked wither LED and High Pressure Sodium (HPS) light technologies provide the same light levels at the street level with the same number of publics. Mr. Sylvester stated that LED technology requires more fixtures to provide the same level of light as HPS. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Meeting 12 Minutes - Draft.doc

3 VN CAC Meeting #12 Meeting Minutes, Page 2 3 Dave Goggin asked whether the esplanade fixture depicted in the presentation was proposed for Van Ness Avenue. Mr. Sylvester responded that this fixture is an example of a decorative fixture. Howard Strassner asked about the energy efficiency comparison of LED vs. HPS, noting that the presentation implied that LED would not necessarily consume less energy to light Van Ness Avenue. Mr. Sylvester responded that using lumens per watt as the evaluation measure, LED would not necessarily perform more efficiently. Howard Strassner asked about pedestrian lighting levels and whether intersection crossings were adequately lit in the proposals. Mr. Sylvester stated that pedestrian coverage could be adjusted on a pole by pole basis by adjusting the fixture cutoffs. Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner, added that the proposed pole design is to include a pedestrian-level fixture on the pole. Dave Goggin stated a preference for full cutoff and minimizing glare. Howard Strassner asked why cities are implementing LED lights if they are not necessarily more energy efficient. Mr. Sylvester clarified that LEDs do use less wattage (consume less power), but that they don t provide the same lighting levels. Dave Goggin added that current lighting criteria don t recognize color temperature; the broader spectrum LEDs seem brighter than the criteria recognize. Sue Black described the PUC s Tenderloin LED project as showing good results in third party testing, and stated that a report would be available in January that would also include results from the City of San Jose. She also added that current standards ( RP- 8 ) are likely going to be updated to address light temperature issues, but that this update may take 3 years. Currently, PUC must meet RP-8 standards. Steve Kendrick asked whether PUC is working with manufacturers to field test LEDs. Ms. Black responded that they have. She added that combined OCS support / light poles have vibration issues that may pose a problem for LEDs. She stated that a PUC master plan is being developed over the next year to address LED issues. 6. Year 2015 and 2035 No Project and With Project Scenario Travel Demand Forecasting Results INFORMATION* Marge Cortes presented the item per the staff memorandum. Jason Henderson suggested that a map shown better highlight / clarify the full corridor extents. Dave Goggin asked why BART to Warm Springs was included as a baseline project. Rachel Hiatt explained that projects included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are included in the assumptions for future transportation networks. Jason Henderson asked whether the TEP was included in the assumed future network. Marge Cortes clarified that the TEP is not included. Howard Strassner suggested that transit and automobile person-trips be shown separately. Steve Kendrick asked for clarification on the CPMC assumptions. Rachel Hiatt explained that the project team is developing a scenario that will include traffic expected along with CPMC. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Meeting 12 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 2 of 4

4 VN CAC Meeting #12 Meeting Minutes, Page 3 4 Jason Henderson asked about future transit crowding levels, noting that the increase in transit trips seemed low to him and whether crowding was constraining ridership. Rachel Hiatt explained that CHAMP does not estimate crowding levels, and that crowding would be analyzed over the coming months. During public comment, Eric P Scott asked whether person trip data is available for Franklin / Gough / Polk streets. Howard Strassner reminded staff hat the Committee had called for a scenario test that tested the effects of rising fuel prices. Michelle Brant suggested that a 2010 future year would be more useful than a future 2035 year. Rachel Hiatt responded that NEPA requires that a long range horizon year be analyzed, and that Steve Kendrick asked what causes the shift towards proportionally more regional trips in year 2035 than today. Marge Cortes responded that she would investigate the cause of this trend. Marla Taylor stated that the results seemed to make sense. Jason Henderson noted that the SFMTA has presented mode split goals for the year 2035 to have a 30% transit mode share, and asked how the study team has taken that into account. Paul Bignardi of SFMTA clarified that the 30% figure is a goal but is not binding. Mel Lee asked how the proposed CPMC is taken into account. Rachel Hiatt explained that the study team is also preparing a scenario test that would include CPMC-related traffic.. 7. Caltrans Design Exceptions INFORMATION Kim Franchi presented the item. Steve Kendrick asked what the allowed minimum grade is on Van Ness Avenue. Rachel Hiatt responded that grades of 9% and over are not permitted in Caltrans standards. Howard Strassner asked whether the team would be able to obtain a design exception for lane width. Kim Franchi explained that the project is perpetuating an existing nonstandard condition, and not narrowing lane widths relative to today, and this was one of the bases for the exception justification. Steve Kendrick asked which alternative was being used as the basis for the design exceptions. Kim Franchi and Rachel Hiatt explained that the team took a calculated risk in beginning the design exception process with one alternative rather than all three to save costs, and that many of the exceptions, such as lane width and grades, are common to all alternatives. Jason Henderson asked whether Caltrans would be willing to relinquish ownership of Van Ness Avenue. Rachel Hiatt explained that the City and the Authority pursued the option of relinquishment during the Feasibility Study stage, and that the City was concerned about being able to obtain maintenance funding from Caltrans. There was no public comment. 8. Public Comment There was no public comment. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Meeting 12 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 3 of 4

5 VN CAC Meeting #12 Meeting Minutes, Page Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Meeting 12 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 4 of 4

Administration Annual Small Starts Report INFORMATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a number of grant programs to support transit capital expansion as authorized by Federal

6 6 Memorandum Date: RE: Van Ness BRT Citizens Advisory Committee October 27, 2009 To: From: Subject: Summary Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Rachel Hiatt Senior Transportation Planner Federal Transit Administration Annual Small Starts Report INFORMATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a number of grant programs to support transit capital expansion as authorized by Federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law in August SAFETEA- LU established a new transit capital investment program, Small Starts, which is intended to fund relatively inexpensive, cost-effective transit capital projects. The Authority was awarded entry into the Small Starts pipeline of projects in 2007, receiving a high rating for project cost effectiveness. The project team provides required annual reports to FTA on project progress towards construction. For this year s annual report, the project team re-estimated the project costs based on revised engineering designs, station platform designs, and other new information developed in support of the EIR/EIS. The 2009 annual report includes no significant updates to the proposed project funding plan; Van Ness Avenue BRT is eligible for up to $75M in Small Starts funds, to be matched by up to $20M in Proposition K sales tax funds. Also updated this year was the Project Management Plan (PMP), which provides information on the project implementation timeframe (including the timetable for vehicles procurement), and progress towards final design and construction activities. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. BACKGROUND The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a number of grant programs to support transit capital expansion as authorized by Federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law in August SAFETEA-LU established a new transit capital investment program, Small Starts, which began funding projects in FTA states that the purpose of the Small Starts program is to seek out those projects that address significant transportation problems or opportunities and provide significant mobility and economic development benefits in a cost-effective manner. Each year Congress appropriates funds for each program and FTA awards grants to eligible recipients to meet the goals of that program. The Authority was awarded entry into the Small Starts pipeline of projects in 2007, receiving a high rating for project cost effectiveness. The project team provides required annual reports to FTA on project progress towards construction. The purpose of this memo is to update the Committee on the 2009 Van Ness Avenue BRT Small Starts Annual Report. Eligibility: Small Starts projects are defined as projects with total costs of less than $250M in year of expenditure dollars. A Small Starts Bus Rapid Transit project must be a new corridor-based bus project with all of the following minimum elements: Substantial transit stations, Traffic signal priority/pre-emption Low-floor vehicles or level boarding, Branding of the proposed service, and O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Item 4 Memo - FTA Small Starts Annual Report.doc Page 1 of 4

7 7 At least 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours per weekday. The proposed features of the Van Ness Avenue BRT alternatives meet Small Starts eligibility criteria. Local and Regional Prioritization: FTA seeks evidence of local and regional commitment to a proposed Small Starts project. Projects are required to be included in the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). MTC, the transportation arm of the 9-county Bay Area MPO, has adopted Van Ness Avenue BRT within the RTP as a Small Starts priority project. Locally, the Board of Supervisors has passed a Resolution declaring Van Ness and Geary BRT to be San Francisco s Small Starts priority projects. Project Evaluation Criteria and Rating: The FTA rates prospective Small Starts projects, with a designation of High, Medium, or Low, on the basis of Project Justification and local financial commitment. The Project Justification criterion considers the project s cost effectiveness, as well as other factors such as land use context and economic development potential. The Local Financial Commitment criterion encompasses the financial capability of the project sponsor to construct and operate the proposed investments. To receive a High rating for Local Financial Commitment, a project must by funded by at least 50% of non-small Starts funds. FTA recommends proposed Small Starts projects for funding after they have been approved to enter into project development, are ready to implement their proposed project, and continue to be rated at least medium for both project justification and local financial commitment. Projects that meet these conditions may be recommended for funding in the Annual Report on Funding Recommendations. In both 2007 and 2008, the Van Ness Avenue BRT project was rated High for Project Justification the only Small Starts project in the nation to receive a High rating in this category and Medium for Local Financial Commitment, resulting in an overall Medium-High project rating. Project Reporting and Monitoring: In the Small Starts program, all preliminary engineering and final design work is combined into one phase, referred to as Project Development. Projects must seek FTA authorization to enter Project Development and receive a project rating. (FTA does not distinguish between preliminary engineering (up to 35% engineering level) and final design (beyond 35%) of Small Starts projects; however, this distinction is important locally as a tool for defining the transition of project lead agency from the Authority to SFMTA). After completion of Project Development, a project sponsor seeks to enter into a Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) with FTA. FTA monitors project status and progress quarterly through its Region 9 Office, which includes California. The Small Starts Annual Report is also reviewed the FTA Headquarters office. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING PLAN For this year s annual report, the project team re-estimated the project costs based on revised engineering designs, station platform designs, and other new information developed in support of the EIR/EIS. Alternative 2 Side BRT Lanes Alternative 3 Center BRT Lanes with Right Side Loading / Dual Medians Alternative 4 Center BRT Lanes with Left Side Loading / Center Median Project Capital Cost $89,403,000 $132,424,000 $118,608,000 O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Item 4 Memo - FTA Small Starts Annual Report.doc Page 2 of 4

8 8 ($2014) The differences in cost among alternatives relate primarily to: median reconstruction utility impacts and requirements incremental vehicle costs Alternative 2 requires less median reconstruction. Alternative 3 has the greatest utility conflicts and requirements. Alternative 4 has a greater incremental cost to provide dual-side door vehicles. Cost Effectiveness: The FTA basis its Project Justification rating in part on a project s cost effectiveness, measured by the incremental annualized project cost per annualized hour of user benefit. According to the FTA formula, the Van Ness BRT project would cost about $5.00 per hour of user benefit, a result that places the project in the high category for cost-effectiveness. Funding Plan: The 2009 Annual Report includes no significant updates to the proposed project funding plan. Van Ness Avenue BRT is eligible for up to $75M in Small Starts funds, to be matched by up to $20M in Proposition K sales tax funds. Cost Funding Summary Federal 5309 Small Starts Prop K Sales Tax Local Other Alternative 2 $89,403,000 $71,522,000 (80%) Alternative 3 $132,424,000 $75,000,000 (57%) Alternative 4 $118,608,000 $75,000,000 (63%) $17,881,000 (20%) $20,000,000 (15%) $20,000,000 (17%) $0 $37,424,000 (28%) $23,608,000 (20%) Alternative 2 could be fully funded by a combination of Small Starts and Prop K sales tax funds. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require additional local funding sources; potential sources include regional greenhouse gas emission reduction grants; state SHOPP funds; and revenues from the Market / Octavia development impact fee. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN A Project Management Plan (PMP) provides the FTA with information on a project sponsor s technical capacity and readiness to implement the project. With each annual submittal, the project team seeks to show evidence of progress in advancing the level of design and in preparing to construct the project. The information provided in the PMP includes updates on the project schedule and status; project team staffing; procurement and contracting; and engineering. For 2009, key updates in the Van Ness BRT PMP include: Revised Implementation Plan, outlining the timeline for each project phase through construction. The Implementation Plan is based on the new construction plan and engineering designs, and includes more detailed breakdown of implementation tasks than past Plans. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Item 4 Memo - FTA Small Starts Annual Report.doc Page 3 of 4

9 9 Vehicles procurement timeline. SFMTA provided a more detailed breakdown of the steps involved in obtaining and testing new BRT vehicles in time for the start of Van Ness BRT revenue service. Construction Staging and Phasing plan. The approach to Van Ness BRT construction staging and phasing, presented to the VN CAC at a previous meeting, was incorporated into the PMP update. We will present more information on the FTA Small Starts Annual Report for the Van Ness Avenue BRT project at the VN CAC meeting. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 13\Item 4 Memo - FTA Small Starts Annual Report.doc Page 4 of 4

SFTP Technical Advisory Committee September 19, 2012

09.19.12 SFTP Technical Advisory Committee September 19, 2012 SFTP Community Advisory Committee Rachel Hiatt Senior Transportation Planner Draft SFTP Project Performance Evaluation Results The SFTP Project