Memorandum - San Francisco County Transportation … . Date: 07.11.13 RE: ... Project Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S), ... along with spot improvements at key

M:\PnP\2013\Memos\07 July\Geary BRT Appropriation\GearyBRT Appropriation 2013 PPC Memo 070913.docx Page 1 of 7

Memorandum

Date: 07.11.13 RE: Plans and Programs Committee July 16, 2013

To: Plans and Programs Committee: Commissioners Mar (Chair), Kim (Vice Chair), Breed, Campos, Yee and Avalos (Ex Officio)

From: Tilly Chang – Deputy Director for Planning Anna La Forte – Deputy Director for Policy and Programming

Through: Maria Lombardo – Interim Executive Director

Subject: ACTION – Recommend Appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K Funds, with Conditions, for Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual Engineering for the Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S), Subject to the Attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and Amendment of the BRT/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro Network 5-Year Prioritization Program

Summary Following adoption of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study (Feasibility Study) in May 2007, the Authority Board, appropriated the first installment for the estimated $6 million environmental and advanced conceptual engineering phase for the BRT project. This initial appropriation and two subsequent appropriations have made a total of $3,955,515 in Prop K funds available for the work thus far. The Authority is leading project development through the environmental review phase, working in partnership with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which will lead final design and construction. We have made substantial progress toward completing the current phase of work, having refined the project alternatives to address community input and advancing environmental technical studies. The project team has identified the remaining work items requiring a final installment of funds, including completion of the transportation and environmental technical studies, preparation of the environmental document, and selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative. At its July 9 meeting, the Authority’s Finance Committee considered a request to increase the professional services contract with Jacobs Engineering Group by $1,329,924 for environmental analysis services for the Geary BRT Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S), which this Prop K request would help fund. The Finance Committee has forwarded the item to the Authority Board with a negative recommendation, raising concerns about the duration of the project schedule, scope changes, etc. and requested additional information from staff regarding how the Authority and the SFMTA will work to ensure more timely project implementation. We will provide an update on this effort at the Plans and Programs Committee meeting. We are seeking a recommendation for the appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering for the Geary BRT Project EIR/S, subject to the attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and amendment of the BRT/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro Network 5-Year Prioritization Program.

BACKGROUND

In May 2007, the Authority and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Boards approved the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study (Feasibility Study), which identified the need for and purpose of BRT on Geary Boulevard. The Feasibility Study developed and evaluated conceptual BRT design alternatives, recommending a set of alternatives for further development, including environmental analysis.

Also in May 2007, through Resolution No. 07-65, the Authority Board appropriated the first installment of an estimated $6 million total budget (about 2.5% of the project capital cost estimate of $240 million


from the feasibility study) for the environmental and conceptual engineering phase for the BRT project. The Authority is leading project development through environmental clearance, working in close partnership with the SFMTA, which will later lead final design and construction.

The Authority Board did not appropriate the full estimated cost of the phase at once, but rather $1,183,000 in Prop K funds, with subsequent appropriations made for needs that were identified as the project progressed. In June 2008, through Resolution No. 08-81, the Authority Board appropriated the next installment of $1,125,000 in Prop K funds, and in December 2010, through Resolution No. 11-32, the Authority Board appropriated $1,647,515 in Prop K funds, with added scope items including expanding the project limits and the number of alternatives to be evaluated. In addition, in order to streamline and focus the management of the project, we augmented Authority staff capacity with the addition of a day-to-day project manager from the Authority’s on-call project management consultant contract with Cordoba/Zurinaga Joint Venture.

Since that time, the project team has made substantial progress. We have produced newly refined engineering designs and cost estimates for four ‘build’ alternatives and one ‘no-build’ alternative along the seven-mile corridor, incorporating recent analysis and community feedback. We have also conducted enhanced outreach and surveys with the merchant community, increased our coordination with pedestrian safety and other potential early delivery efforts in the corridor, and refined designs at the Masonic and Fillmore intersections while also further detailing designs at either end of the corridor. Finally, we have applied lessons learned from the Van Ness BRT project and enhanced tree analysis as well as plan to deepen utility investigations. Additional funds are needed to enable the Authority, working with SFMTA and Jacobs Engineering Group, to accelerate and complete this phase of work. Authority and SFMTA staff and Jacobs Engineering Group would undertake this remaining work.

At its July 9 meeting, the Authority’s Finance Committee considered a request to increase the professional services contract with Jacobs Engineering Group by $1,329,924 for environmental analysis services for the Geary BRT Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S), which this Prop K request would help fund. The Finance Committee has forwarded the item to the Authority Board with a negative recommendation, raising concerns about the duration of the project schedule, scope changes, etc. and requested additional information from staff regarding how the Authority and the SFMTA will work to ensure more timely project implementation. We will provide an update on this effort at the Plans and Programs Committee meeting.

The purpose of this memorandum is to present our request for additional project funds for the Authority, SFMTA and Jacobs Engineering Group to complete the environmental phase of work for the Geary BRT Project.

DISCUSSION

The Environmental Analysis for the Geary BRT Project includes all work associated with the refinement of BRT design options and cost estimates, and the evaluation of alternatives and environmental review of all options, culminating in the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and completion of the EIR/S.

This phase of the Geary BRT Project includes the following main tasks:

A. Project Management and External Coordination – Public involvement throughout the analysis, including public workshops, public hearings, stakeholder and agency meetings, and public communications materials.

B. Environmental Impact Analysis and Documentation – Preparation of an Environmental


Document that meets the requirements for both an EIS in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and an EIR in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

C/D. Alternatives Analysis/Advanced Conceptual Engineering – Preparation of advanced conceptual engineering design documents for the EIR/S project alternatives as needed to clarify potential impacts and support identification of a LPA; and additional planning, engineering, and cost estimation for complex grade-separated intersections at Fillmore Street and Masonic Avenue.

The sections below describe the progress on each task which has involved a higher level of effort than anticipated to respond to technical and community concerns, and the remaining work to complete the phase. We also provide an update on the definition of alternatives and a schedule for the remaining work.

Progress Since December 2010: Since the most recent Prop K appropriation in December 2010, project work has been focused on ways to facilitate community involvement and merchant engagement, as well as undertaking detailed technical investigations that will enable us to accelerate project development by supporting the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative this fall.

Progress on Task A – recent outreach activities. We conducted a round of community outreach in summer 2012 to provide updated project information and solicit input on alternatives, including 30 targeted stakeholder meetings and three hosted community meetings. This round of outreach led to the addition of several tasks to help respond to community concerns we heard about potential parking loss and business impacts, among other issues. Examples of additional outreach work we undertook was a patron intercept survey in Spring 2013 to determine Geary corridor business patron spending and travel patterns, as well as a door-to-door merchant survey to gather information on merchant perceptions and issues. Finally, we have continued in-depth community coordination through our quarterly Geary Citizen Advisory Committee (GCAC) meetings.

Progress on Task B – transportation and environmental analyses. Based on the revised project definition (see below), we have begun updating our analysis of various aspects of transportation performance, including the effects of project alternatives on on-street parking. We have also used the revised project definition and engineering drawings to define the limits of environmental study, enabling the team to proceed with the full environmental technical studies. To inform the analysis, the team has collected new data on traffic volumes and existing trees.

Progress on Task C/D – project alternatives definitions. We have refined and expanded the definition of alternatives (see the next section below for more detail), including identifying specific improvements for the ‘Inner Geary’ east of Van Ness Avenue and creating a new project variant referred to as Alternative 3 – Consolidated which combines the BRT and Light Rail Transit service into a single service that operates in the center lanes using right side platforms. The main benefit of this alternative is its relatively lower parking impacts. We have also advanced designs at the Fillmore Street and Masonic Avenue complexes, and extended the bus-only lanes on the western end of the corridor to 33rd Avenue, in response to public input. We have generated new detailed engineering design drawings for the full length of the corridor based on this refined definition. The team has created draft cost estimates for each alternative on a segment-by-segment basis throughout the corridor, in anticipation of the need to consider combinations of alternatives. And finally, we have identified a subset of transit and pedestrian safety improvements that could be implemented in the near term, in advance of the start of BRT service.


Revised Project Definition and Alternatives: The recent work has resulted in better clarity on the project definition and alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental document, for the full length of the seven-mile corridor.

Within ‘Inner Geary’, the one-mile segment on Geary and O’Farrell Streets, from Market Street to Gough Street, the project design strengthens the existing bus-only lanes with new baseline enhancements such as colorized pavement and new signage, along with spot improvements at key congested intersections and enhancements at BRT stations.

Between Gough Street and 25th Avenue (3.5 miles), the project now consists of one ‘no-build’ and four ‘build’ alternatives:

1. No-build/baseline improvements

2. Side-running bus lane

3. Center-running bus lane, dual right-side median platforms, bus passing zones at local stops

Consolidated [new]. Center-running bus lane, dual right-side median platforms, consolidated Local/BRT Service, no bus passing zones

4. Center-running bus lane, single left-side median platforms, bus passing zones at local stops

Between 25th and 33rd Avenues (0.5 miles), the project design features side-running BRT lanes for all alternatives. From 33rd Avenue to 48th Avenue (less than one mile), the reduced traffic and transit demands are such that buses will not require the relatively higher-capacity design of center BRT lanes.

Remaining Work and New Requested Installment: To complete this environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering phase for the Geary Corridor BRT Project, the team has identified the remaining work items, including those items requiring additional resources, and some newly identified scope items, as described above and below. The requested funds would support additional technical and outreach tasks and project management for the expanded project scope, including resources for the Jacobs Engineering Group consultant contract, the SFMTA and Authority staff teams, (including a project management consultant), supplemental community outreach and modeling support, and legal counsel. Other remaining work includes the following:

Completion of transportation and environmental analyses (as per Task B). A full transportation analysis for two future horizon years (2020 and 2035) is needed for the newly revised definitions for four build alternatives and one no-build alternative. This represents a new effort for the new alternative 3-Consolidated center lane services build alternative and additional effort to revise previously initiated transportation work. For the environmental analysis, some of the technical studies require updating, while other studies will make use of the transportation analysis results.

Preparation of environmental document (as per Task B). The technical analyses, when complete, will provide the basis for documenting the potential project impacts in accordance with federal NEPA and state CEQA requirements. This work includes a Draft document, legal counsel on environmental regulatory procedures, a public comment period, and a Final document that includes responses to comments and other accompanying documentation.

Selection of locally preferred alternative (LPA) (as per Task C/D). The technical analyses will inform the design of an LPA project to be selected by the Authority and SFMTA Boards.

Additional community outreach and interagency coordination (as per Task A). The team is planning for two additional rounds of outreach: one to provide support the LPA decision, and one to raise awareness for


the release of the draft environmental document. We will also publicize the final document, and all outreach will be conducted with multi-lingual and accessible materials. Stakeholder meetings, hosted community meetings, and other direct outreach will accompany each outreach round. We will also continue our quarterly GCAC meetings, as well as our agency coordination, such as with the SFMTA, Department of Public Works and other local stakeholder agencies. This inter-agency coordination and community outreach will support BRT project design, as well as ensure compatibility with the Transit Effectiveness Project, related pedestrian safety projects and other near term improvements we are helping to plan in the corridor such as the potential fill of the underpass at Fillmore Street. We will also continue to work with the Federal Transit Administration to fulfill NEPA requirements and begin discussions for potential federal funding.

Costs and funding strategy (as per Task C/D). The team will use the completed alternatives-based cost estimate to generate a refined project cost estimate for the selected LPA. We will also identify funding opportunities and develop a funding strategy for the LPA.

Budget: The requested funds increase the budget for the environmental phase from $6 million to $6.7 million (about a 12% increase) as shown in Table 1 below. As a percentage of the estimated capital cost for the project, or $240 million, the environmental phase represents less than 3% of the estimated project cost, well within industry standards for this type of project.

Table 1: Environmental Phase Budget

Previous and Current Prop K Requests Amount

Resolution No. 07-65 $1,183,000

Resolution No. 08-81 $1,125,000

Resolution No. 11-32 $1,647,515

Previous Appropriations $3,955,515

Current Request $2,790,598

Total Prop K (including current request) $6,746,113

Schedule: The schedule for major upcoming project milestones is shown in the following table.

Table 2: Project Schedule

Milestone Date

Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative, including community outreach

Fall 2013

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement Document

Spring 2014

Final Environmental Document certification Winter 2014/15


This schedule reflects a strategy to accelerate the remaining environmental review tasks and thereby make up some schedule delays for this phase by selecting an LPA in advance of the release of the Draft environmental document. This would ensure a strong public process for selecting LPA while enabling more streamlined approaches to the Draft and Final EIR/S. As currently anticipated, the project schedule calls for detailed design work to take place following environmental approvals in winter 2014/15, with construction slated to begin in 2017 and the start of BRT services in Fiscal Year 2019/20. This summer, the project team will explore the possibility of advancing project design following the selection of the LPA, in parallel with the completion of environmental review, a process known as “designing at-risk”. Combined with other potential project delivery strategies, these methods may enable the overall schedule to be shortened.

5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) Amendment: This request requires an amendment to the BRT/Transit Preferential Streets (TPS)/Muni Metro Network 5YPP, which currently has $5,692,485 programmed for the Geary BRT final design in Fiscal Year 2010/11. The amendment would reprogram these funds from the final design phase to the environmental analysis phase in Fiscal Year 2013/14. SFMTA concurs with the proposed amendment and appropriation request.

We are seeking a recommendation for the appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering for the Geary BRT Project EIR/S, subject to the attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and amendment of the BRT/TPS/Muni Metro Network 5YPP.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Recommend appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering for the Geary BRT Project EIR/S, subject to the attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and amendment of the BRT/TPS/Muni Metro Network 5YPP.

2. Recommend appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering for the Geary BRT Project EIR/S, subject to the attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and amendment of the BRT/TPS/Muni Metro Network 5YPP, with modifications.

3. Defer action, pending additional information or further staff analysis.

CAC POSITION

The CAC was briefed on this item at its June 26 meeting, and adopted a motion of support for the staff recommendation with seven members voting in favor and two members dissenting.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS

This action would appropriate $2,790,598 in Fiscal Year 2013/14 Prop K funds for the subject project. The allocation would be subject to the Fiscal Year Cash Flow Distribution Schedule contained in the attached Allocation Request Form. The recommended cash flow is consistent with the adopted 2009 Prop K Strategic Plan, and as such, will not trigger the need for additional financing beyond that already assumed in the Strategic Plan. The Prop K Capital Budget (Attachment 2) shows a cash flow distribution schedule for the subject project. Attachment 3 contains a cash-flow-based summary table of the Fiscal Year 2013/14 allocations to date, as well as the recommended cash flow distribution


schedule.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommend appropriation of $2,790,598 in Prop K funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering for the Geary BRT Project EIR/S, subject to the attached Cash Flow Distribution Schedule and amendment of the BRT/TPS/Muni Metro Network 5YPP.

Attachments:

1. Prop K Allocation Request Form 2. Prop K Fiscal Year 2013/14 Capital Budget 3. Prop K Fiscal Year 2013/14 Capital Budget Summary

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Prop K/Prop AA Allocation Request Form

FY of Allocation Action: 2013/14

Project Name:

Implementing Agency:

EXPENDITURE PLAN INFORMATION

Prop K Category:

Prop K Subcategory:

Prop K EP Project/Program:

Prop K EP Line Number (Primary): 1 Current Prop K Request:

Prop K Other EP Line Numbers:

Prop AA Category:

Current Prop AA Request:

Supervisorial District(s):

Please see attached scope of work.

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual Engineering

SCOPE


A. Transit

i. Major Capital Projects (transit)

Gray cells will

automatically be

filled in.

a.1 Bus Rapid Transit/MUNI Metro Network

2,790,598$

Sufficient scope detail should be provided to allow Authority staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed budget and

schedule. If there are prior allocations for the same project, provide an update on progress. Describe any outreach activities

included in the scope. Long scopes may be provided in a separate Word file. Maps, drawings, etc. should be provided on

Worksheet 7-Maps.or by inserting additional worksheets.

Project sponsors shall provide a brief explanation of how the project was prioritized for funding, highlighting: 1) project benefits, 2)

level of public input into the prioritization process, and 3) whether the project is included in any adopted plans, including Prop

K/Prop AA 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPPs). Justify any inconsistencies with the adopted Prop K/Prop AA Strategic Plans

and/or relevant 5YPPs.

Indicate whether work is to be performed by outside consultants and/or by force account.

-$

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 1-Scope Page 1 of 17

Attachment 1

Geary Bus Rapid Transit June 2013 Environmental Studies Scope of Work Amendment

M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2013\06 Jun 26\Geary BRT Env ARF & Amendment Item\Geary BRT EIR ARF2013 Scope 061913.docx Page 2 of 17

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project Environmental Studies and Advanced Conceptual Engineering

Scope of Work Amendment

The following scope of work amendment describes revised and additional activities required to complete the environmental and advanced conceptual engineering phase of the Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. The Authority is leading this phase of work, in close coordination with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA).

In May 2007, the Authority approved the Geary Corridor BRT Feasibility Study, and through Resolution 07-65 it committed $1,183,000 in Prop K funds to the environmental and advanced conceptual engineering phase of the project. The original scope of work included:

A. Project Management and External Coordination

B. Environmental Impact Analysis and Documentation

C/D. Alternatives Analysis/Advanced Conceptual Engineering

At the time, the estimated the cost of the above tasks was approximately $6 million. Authority staff did not request the amount in full but rather an initial budget installment, with subsequent installments requested as the project progressed.

Previous Installments

The original resolution (07-65) appropriated $1,183,000 as the initial installment. Resolution 08-81, approved in 2008, appropriated $1,125,000. The most recent appropriation was approved through Resolution 11-32 in December 2010, providing $1,647,515. In sum, the Authority Board has appropriated $3,955,515 in Prop K to the project.

The scopes of work for these appropriations added work items as needs surfaced as a result of project refinement and public input, including:

An additional build alternative, as a result of the environmental scoping process;

Development of robust improvements on Geary and O’Farrell Streets east of Van Ness Avenue; and

Analysis for the complex Fillmore and Masonic grade-separated intersections, including engineering and transportation modeling.

Progress Since December 2010

Since the last appropriation in 2010, the project team has made substantial progress on several fronts, as follows:

Additional outreach and coordination. The team conducted a major round of public meetings in summer 2012 to provide a project update on the refined build alternatives and to solicit input, particularly on key transitions and design options at complex nodes along the corridor. Outreach activities included three neighborhood open houses, publicized in multiple languages, and more than 30 presentations to stakeholder groups. The team also conducted a patron survey with interviews with more than 500 visitors to the Geary corridor, a door-to-door merchant survey visiting more



than 800 businesses, and continued inter-agency, inter-project, and Geary Citizen Advisory Committee (GCAC) coordination.

Further technical analysis. Activities included corridor-wide block-by-block parking, loading space, and existing tree surveys, new traffic counts at over 20 intersections, finalization of the limits of environmental study to clear the way for full environmental technical studies, and development of approved baseline traffic volume and transit ridership projections.

Detailed refinements to project and alternative definitions. In response to public input and further analysis, the team refined the initial preliminary (12%) designs for the seven-mile corridor, including:

the ‘Inner Geary’ segment east of Van Ness Avenue;

the segment between Van Ness Avenue and 25th Street, with introduction of a new variant – Alternative 3 Consolidated – that responds to community feedback by preserving as much on-street parking as feasible;

the complex Fillmore Street and Masonic Avenue grade-separated intersections; and

bus-only lanes for the segment between 25th and 33rd Streets.

Design work was also tried on transition areas where the BRT would shift from the center of the street to the side and vice versa, refined bus service plans and stop configurations for each project alternative, and draft revised cost estimates for all BRT alternatives. Finally, the project team developed an initial set of potential near-term transit and pedestrian-related projects that could be pursued prior to the implementation of BRT service along Geary.

Revised Project Definition and Alternatives

The recent work has resulted in better clarity on the project definition and alternatives.

Within the one-mile ‘Inner Geary’ segment from Market Street to Gough Street, the project looks to strengthen the existing bus-only lanes in their current location with bus-only lane colorization and signage, along with re-configurations of key congested intersections and BRT stop and station enhancements.

Between Gough Street and 25th Avenue (3.5 miles), the project now consists of one ‘no-build’ and four ‘build’ alternatives:

Alternative 1: No-build

Alternative 2: Side-running bus lane

Alternative 3: Center-running bus lane, dual right-side median platforms, bus passing zones at local stops

Alternative 3 Consolidated [new]: Center-running bus lane, dual right-side median platforms, consolidated Local/BRT Service, no bus passing zones

Alternative 4: Center-running bus lane, single left-side median platforms, bus passing zones at local stops



Between 25th and 33rd Avenues (0.5 miles), the one proposed alternative features side-running BRT lanes. From 33rd to 48th Avenues (less than one mile), the reduced traffic and transit demands are such that buses do not need dedicated lanes.

Scope for New Requested Installment

In the course of the work, the project team has identified several additional items needed to complete this phase of project development, representing three types of work: original scope items that have not yet been initiated; original scope items that have been initiated but require further resources; and newly identified remaining work to be done. The new requested installment represents work additional to the current balance, as shown in the table below.

Previous and Current Prop K Fund Requests Amount

R07-65 $1,183,000

R08-81 $1,125,000

R11-32 $1,647,515

Previous Appropriations $3,955,515

Current Request $2,790,598

Total Prop K Funds $6,746,113

In the table and sections on the following pages, we provide details regarding the work remaining for each task.



Task Original scope items

remaining Original scope items

requiring additional funds Newly identified

scope items

Task A. Project Management and External Coordination

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings

Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) meetings

Federal, state, regional agency coordination

Task B. Environmental Impact Analysis and Documentation

Draft and Final Environmental Document

2 outreach rounds to accompany Draft and Final document release

FTA Record of Decision / Notice of Determination

Transportation analysis for three build alternatives and one no-build alternative

Completion of environmental studies for three build alternatives and one no-build alternative

Outreach round to support locally preferred alternative (LPA) discussions

Environmental studies for one new alternative; enhanced tree analysis

Transportation analysis for one new build alternative

Draft and Final Environmental Document for one new build alternative; legal review

Tasks C/D. Advanced Conceptual Engineering/Alternatives Analysis

Funding and Implementation Plan

FTA Small Starts Report

Refined preliminary initial engineering (12%) drawings for three build and one no-build alternative

Refined cost estimates for three build alternatives and one no-build alternative

Refined service plan and operating cost estimates for three build alternatives

Determination and documentation of LPA [increased corridor length/complexity]

Refined preliminary initial engineering (12%) drawings for one new build alternative

Refined cost estimates for one new build alternative

Refined service plan and operating cost estimates for one new build alternative

Lead agency design transition



Task A. Project Management and External Coordination

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Five meetings anticipated remaining.

Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC). Five meetings anticipated remaining.

Federal, state, regional agency coordination. Continued coordination needed with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and other agencies through Record of Decision/Notice of Determination.

Task B. Environmental Impact Analysis and Documentation

Public involvement activities. Three remaining outreach rounds needed to support a project update/locally preferred alternative (LPA) discussion; release of draft EIS/EIR document; Final EIS/EIR.

Transportation analysis for four build alternatives. Full transportation analysis process, including travel demand forecasting, mesoscopic simulation, output post-processing, and microsimulation, for five scenarios for two horizon years (2020 and 2035). Previously completed analysis to be updated based on new information regarding stop locations, bus service plans, left turn locations, and the new consolidated alternative.

Completion of environmental technical studies. Some of the previous work (including historical resources, archeological resources, and community impacts) to be updated based on new project definition and alternatives, and work dependent on the final project definition and transportation analysis results (including air/energy, noise, visual, biological, geologic, hazardous materials, and water impacts) to be initiated when those results are available.

Preparation of Draft and Final EIS/EIR document, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. To be completed based on updated/completed environmental technical studies. This includes legal review and advice on legal aspects of the environmental process from the Authority’s own in-house counsel and the Office of the City Attorney.

FTA Record of Decision/Notice of Determination. To be obtained upon completion of environmental documentation.

Tasks C/D. Advanced Conceptual Engineering/Alternatives Analysis

Refined initial preliminary engineering drawings and report for four build alternatives and one no-build alternative. Final refinements anticipated in response to continued public outreach, funding considerations, environmental technical studies, and LPA discussions.

Refined capital cost estimate for four build alternatives and one no-build alternative. Final refinements to previously generated estimates, based on refinements to designs.

Refined service plan and operating cost estimate for four build alternatives. Final refinements to previously generated service plans and considerations anticipated in response to continued public outreach, funding considerations, environmental technical studies, and LPA discussions.

Determination and documentation of LPA. Development and evaluation of combinations of the ‘pure’ configurations for each corridor segment leading to LPA selection. Includes documentation in an LPA report.



Funding and Implementation Plan. Project funding plan for the LPA and a baseline (no-build) funding plan incorporating related investments. This includes a project management plan for implementation including construction staging, schedule, and traffic management.

FTA Small Starts Report. To be completed based on LPA selection; includes formatting of LPA cost estimate in accordance to FTA requirements.

Design Transition. Transmittal of all materials generated during this phase of work from the current project team to the engineering design team, as well as development of a transition plan, as needed to prepare the project to enter full engineering design.

Schedule

Milestone Dates

LPA decision, including community outreach Fall 2013

Draft Environmental Document Spring 2014

Final Environmental Document certification Winter 2014/15

5-Year Prioritization Program and Strategic Plan Consistency

BRT on Geary has been identified as a city priority through Prop K Expenditure Plan; the 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan; the Prop K Strategic Plan; and the 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) for the BRT-Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) category.

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro Network 5YPP currently has $5,692,485 programmed for the Geary BRT project in Fiscal Year 2010/11. The requested appropriation requires a 5YPP amendment to reprogram these funds from the final design phase to the environmental analysis phase in Fiscal Year 2013/14.



FY 2013/14

Project Name:


ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

Type : Completion Date

(mm/dd/yy)

Status:

Start Date End Date

Quarter Fiscal Year Quarter Fiscal Year

4 2006/07 2 2015/16

2 2008/09 2 2014/15

3 2015/16 3 2016/17

Prepare Bid Documents 4 2016/17 4 2016/17

1 2017/18 1 2017/18

2 2017/18

3 2013/14 3 2014/15

2 2019/20

Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred) 3 2020/21

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and Advanced

Conceptual Engineering

SCHEDULE COORDINATION/NOTES


EIR/EIS

Environmental Studies (PA&ED)

PROJECT DELIVERY MILESTONES

Underway 12/31/14

Enter dates for ALL project phases, not just for the current request. Use July 1 as the start of the fiscal

year. Use 1, 2, 3, 4 to denote quarters and XXXX/XX for the fiscal year (e.g. 2010/11). Additional schedule

detail may be provided in the text box below.

Provide project delivery milestones for each sub-project in the current request and a schedule for public

involvement, if appropriate. For planning efforts, provide start/end dates by task here or in the scope (Tab

1). Describe coordination with other project schedules or external deadlines (e.g., obligation deadlines) that

impact the project schedule, if relevant.

Design Engineering (PS&E)

Planning/Conceptual Engineering

Procurement (e.g. rolling stock)

Project Completion (i.e., Open for Use)

R/W Activities/Acquisition

Advertise Construction

Start Construction (e.g., Award Contract)

Schedule detail is as follows: 1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR/EIS) will be complete, and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will be designated, in spring 2014. 2. The FEIR/EIS will be released in winter 2014/15. 3. Following environmental clearance and approval of the LPA, the project team will begin preliminary engineering and final design for the project toward the end of 2014. 4. The project team will submit the project's Small Starts report at the beginning of 2015 to enter the Small Starts funding process. 5. Preliminary engineering and final design will be complete by the middle of 2017. 6. The construction of the project would occur in 2018-19. 7. The Geary BRT would open for service in Fiscal Year 2019/20.

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 2-Schedule Page 8 of 17



FY 2013/14

Project Name:


COST SUMMARY BY PHASE - CURRENT REQUEST

Cost for Current Request/Phase

Yes/No Total Cost

Yes

COST SUMMARY BY PHASE - ENTIRE PROJECT

Total Cost

12,300,000$

6,746,113$

19,000,000$

189,400,000$

15,600,000$

243,046,113$

% Complete of Design: 12 as of

Expected Useful Life: 50 Years

6,746,113

3/31/13

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and Advanced

Conceptual Engineering

Construction



Allocations will generally be for one phase only. Multi-phase allocations will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Enter the total cost for the phase or partial (but useful segment) phase (e.g. Islais Creek Phase 1 construction) covered by the

CURRENT funding request.





Source of Cost Estimate

6,746,113

Show total cost for ALL project phases based on best available information. Source of cost estimate (e.g. 35% design, vendor

quote) is intended to help gauge the quality of the cost estimate, which should improve in reliability the farther along a project

is in its development.

Engineer's Estimate at 12% Design

Actuals + Cost to Complete


Total:


Construction




SFMTA Engineer's Estimate



- 2,790,598

Prop AA -

Current Request

Prop K -

Current Request

2,790,598

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 3-Cost Page 9 of 17



A B C/D

Contingency

(Amount)

Contingency

(%) Total

$462,525 $2,239,349 $1,047,912 $205,729 5% $3,955,515

$181,254 $1,728,982 $643,493 $236,869 9% $2,790,598

$643,779 $3,968,331 $1,691,405 $442,598 7% 6,746,113

Existing Budget Summary A B C/D

Contingency

(Amount)

Contingency

(%) Total Cost

Authority $121,475 $252,625 $202,100 $576,200

SFMTA $20,400 $157,100 $166,000 $343,500

Cordoba/Zurinaga $25,000 $112,000 $28,250 $16,000 10% $181,250

Technical Consultant Team $295,650 $1,717,624 $651,562 $189,729 7% $2,854,565

TOTAL - EXISTING BUDGET $462,525 $2,239,349 $1,047,912 $205,729 5% $3,955,515

Current Request Summary A B C/D

Contingency

(Amount)

Contingency

(%) Total Cost

Authority $26,930 $168,750 $170,181 $29,153 8% $395,014

SFMTA $6,548 $96,101 $15,778 $118,427

Legal/Other Consultants $110,016 $601,909 $165,400 $69,907 8% $947,232

Technical Consultant Team $37,760 $862,222 $292,133 $137,809 12% $1,329,925

TOTAL - CURRENT REQUEST $181,254 $1,728,982 $643,493 $236,869 9% $2,790,599

Total Budget with

This Request

Task

Task

MAJOR LINE ITEM BUDGET

1. Provide a major line item budget, with subtotals by task and phase. More detail is required the farther along the project is in the development phase. Planning studies should provide task-level budget information.

2. Requests for project development should include preliminary estimates for later phases such as construction.

3. Support costs and contingencies should be called out in each phase, as appropriate. Provide both dollar amounts and % (e.g. % of construction) for support costs and contingencies.

4. For work to be performed by agency staff rather than consultants, provide base rate, overhead multiplier, and fully burdened rates by position with FTE (full-time equivalent) ratio. A sample format is provided below.

5. For construction costs, please include budget details. A sample format is provided below. Please note if work will be performed through a contract.

6. For any contract work, please provide the LBE/SBE/DBE goals as applicable to the contract.

C/D - Alternatives Analysis/Advanced Conceptual

Engineering

TASKS

A - Project Management and External Coordination

B - Environmental Impact Analysis and Documentation Existing Budget

Current Request

Task

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 4-Major Line Item Budget Page 10 of 17



MAJOR LINE ITEM BUDGET

Current Request Budget DetailHourly Base

Rate Overhead Rate Fully Burdened Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Total Hours Contingency Total Cost

Authority Fringe Amount

Deputy Director $87.58 $27.28 $115 143 $16,474 255 $29,301 399 $45,776

Principal Transportation Planner $60.47 $18.84 $79 85 $6,737 985 $78,109 1,087 $86,172 2,156 $171,018

Transportation Planner $44.96 $14.01 $59 342 $20,193 1,258 $74,166 928 $54,708 2,528 (8%) $149,067

427 $26,930 2,386 $168,750 2,269 $170,181 5,083 $29,153 $395,014

SFMTA O.H. Rate

SFMTA Transit Planner IV $56.74 3.67 $208 31 $6,548 255 $52,948 39 $8,174 325 $67,670

SFMTA Transit Planner III $47.83 3.73 $178 108 $19,302 21 $3,775 129 $23,077

SFMTA Transit Planner II $43.33 3.52 $153 94 $14,422 16 $2,398 110 $16,820

SFMTA Intern $26.60 3.82 $102 93 $9,430 14 $1,431 107 $10,861

31 $6,548 550 $96,101 90 $15,778 672 $118,427

Legal/Other Consultants

Cordoba/Zurinaga - Contract PM $190 579 $110,016 1,293 $245,620 871 $165,400 2,742 $521,036

Barbary Coast $175 693 $121,228 693 $121,228

Modeling Support Consultant $210 291 $61,061 291 $61,061

Legal (City Attorney and Authority Counsel) $309 563 $174,000 563 (8%) $174,000

579 $110,016 2,839 $601,909 871 $165,400 4,289 $69,907 $947,232

Technical Consultant Team

Jacobs $134 189 $25,334 2,947 $395,627 1,544 $207,260 4,679 $628,221

Baseline Environmental $152 141 $21,450 6 $931 147 $22,381

Circlepoint $139 6 $774 517 $72,073 64 $8,927 587 $81,774

CD+A $111 438 $48,564 438 $48,564

Diaz Yourman $165 -279 -$45,988 -153 -$25,230 -433 -$71,218

EPS $171 2 $375 2 $375

FarWestern $120 -3 -$313 50 $5,974 47 $5,661

Fehr & Peers $149 59 $8,870 867 $129,503 -25 -$3,757 901 $134,616

Hort Science $158 179 $28,208 179 $28,208

JRP Historical $74 3 $237 48 $3,552 51 $3,789

M. Lee Corp $147 156 $22,862 636 $93,258 791 $116,120

McCormick Rankin $124 54 $6,672 -92 -$11,496 -127 -$15,753 -165 -$20,577

MSA $149 -4 -$530 74 $11,055 283 $42,205 354 $52,729

PB $159 646 $102,687 646 $102,687

Public Vision Research $155 175 $27,054 175 $27,054

TAHA $118 277 $32,500 277 $32,500

Turnstone Consulting $195 234 $45,658 234 $45,658

William Kanemoto $133 716 $95,052 716 $95,052

David Vasquez N/A -148 -$21,038 -148 -$21,038

Natural Resources Mgmt N/A -18 -$2,618 -39 -$5,500 -57 -$8,118

Nelson\Nygaard N/A -5 -$664 -124 -$17,516 -111 -$15,709 -239 -$33,889

Pittman N/A -289 -$40,950 -289 -$40,950

R Fisher N/A 19 $2,625 19 $2,625

Valler Design N/A -283 -$40,110 -283 (12%) -$40,110

281 $37,760 6,231 $862,222 2,117 $292,133 8,629 $137,809 $1,329,925

TOTAL - CURRENT REQUEST 1,319 $181,254 12,006 $1,728,982 5,347 $643,493 18,672 $236,869 $2,790,599

*Note: Negative values reflect reallocation of work between subcontractors consistent with revised scope of services.

A B C/D

Task

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 4-Major Line Item Budget Page 11 of 17



FY 2013/14

Project Name:

Prop K Funds Requested:

5-Year Prioritization Program Amount: (enter if appropriate)

Strategic Plan Amount for Requested FY:

Prop AA Funds Requested:

5-Year Prioritization Program Amount: (enter if appropriate)

Strategic Plan Amount for Requested FY:

Planned Programmed Allocated Total

$2,790,598 $3,955,515 $6,746,113

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$2,790,598 $3,955,515 $3,955,515 $6,746,113

Actual Prop K Leveraging - This Phase: $6,746,113

Total from Cost worksheet

$2,790,598

$5,692,485

$44,651,542

Total:

81.67%

FUNDING PLAN - FOR CURRENT PROP AA REQUEST

Enter the funding plan for the phase or phases for which Prop K/Prop AA funds are currently being requested. Totals should

match those shown on the Cost worksheet.

0.00%


If the amount requested is inconsistent (e.g., greater than) with the Prop K/Prop AA Strategic Plan amount and/or the 5-Year

Prioritization Program (5YPP), provide a justification in the space below including a detailed explanation of which other

project or projects will be deleted, deferred, etc. to accommodate the current request and maintain consistency with the 5YPP

and/or Strategic Plan annual programming levels.

FUNDING PLAN - FOR CURRENT PROP K REQUEST

Fund Source

$0

The 5YPP amount is the amount of Prop K funds available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2013/14 for the Geary BRT project

from the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro Network category. This request requires a 5YPP

amendment to reprogram these funds from the final design phase to the environmental studies phase in Fiscal Year 2013/14.

See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

The Strategic Plan amount is the amount programmed in the entire BRT/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro Network

category in Fiscal Year 2013/14 ($26,020,000), programmed but unallocated funds from prior years ($18,219,691), and

cumulative remaining programming capacity ($411,851).

Prop K Sales Tax

Expected Prop K Leveraging per Expenditure

Plan

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 5-Funding Page 12 of 17



Is Prop K/Prop AA providing local match funds for a state or federal grant?

$ Amount % $

Planned Programmed Allocated Total

$2,790,598 $22,901,887 $3,955,515 $29,648,000

$75,000,000 $75,000,000

$138,398,113 $138,398,113

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$22,901,887 $247,001,628 $243,046,113

87.80% $243,046,113

Expected Prop K Leveraging per Expenditure Plan: 81.67% Total from Cost worksheet

.

Prop K Funds Requested:

Cash Flow% Reimbursed

AnnuallyBalance

$1,860,399 67.00% $930,199

$930,199 33.00% $0

0.00% $0

0.00% $0

$2,790,598

Prop AA Funds Requested:

Cash Flow% Reimbursed

AnnuallyBalance

$0

Sponsor Request - Proposed Prop K Cash Flow Distribution Schedule

Sponsor Request - Proposed Prop AA Cash Flow Distribution Schedule

Fund Source

Required Local Match

No

$2,790,598

Total:

Actual Prop K Leveraging - Entire Project:

Actual Prop AA Leveraging - Entire Project:

FUNDING PLAN - FOR ENTIRE PROJECT (ALL PHASES)

FISCAL YEAR CASH FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR CURRENT PROP K REQUEST

To Be Determined

Federal Small Starts

Fund Source

Total:

Fiscal Year

Total:

$0

FY 2014/15

Prop K

Fiscal Year

FY 2013/14

Enter the funding plan for all phases (environmental studies through construction) of the project. This section may be left

blank if the current request covers all project phases. Totals should match those shown on the Cost worksheet.

Use the table below to enter the proposed cash flow distribution schedule (e.g. the maximum Prop K/Prop AA funds that are

guaranteed to be available for reimbursement each fiscal year) for the current request. If the schedule is more aggressive than

the Prop K/Prop AA Strategic Plan and/or 5YPP, please explain in the text box below how cash flow for other projects and

programs will be slowed down to accommodate the current request without exceeding annual cash flow assumptions made in

the Strategic Plan.

The SFCTA and SFMTA are refining the funding strategy as part of the EIR/S phase. Sources under consideration include: Prop K, Prop AA, Transportation Fund for Clean Air, Lifeline, regional grant programs such as OneBayArea Grant Program - Cycle 2 (OBAG) and Safe Routes to Transit. Safe Routes to Transit funds can be used for improvements such as safety enhancements for pedestrian/bicycle station access to transit station platforms.

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 5-Funding Page 13 of 17



This section is to be completed by Authority Staff.

Last Updated: 6.21.13 Resolution. No. Res. Date:

Project Name:


Phase:

Funding Recommended: Prop K Appropriation

Total:

Cash Flow Distribution Schedule by Fiscal Year (for entire allocation/appropriation)

Source

%

Reimbursable

Prop K EP 1 67.00%

Prop K EP 1 33.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

Cash Flow Distribution Schedule by Fiscal Year & Phase (for entire allocation/appropriation)

Source Fiscal Year

Maximum

Reimbursement

Prop K EP 1 FY 2013/14 $1,860,399

Prop K EP 1 FY 2014/15 $930,199

$2,790,598

Prop K/Prop AA Fund Expiration Date: Eligible expenses must be incurred prior to this date.

$930,199

6/30/2015

$0

Total: $2,790,598

$0

Total:

$0

$0

$930,199

Fiscal Year

$0

$930,199

Balance


AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION

Notes (e.g., justification for multi-phase recommendations, notes

for multi-EP line item or multi-sponsor recommendations):

$1,860,399

Amount

$2,790,598

FY 2013/14

$2,790,598

Maximum

Reimbursement


$0


Phase


FY 2014/15


100%

Cumulative %

Reimbursable

100%

100%

100%

Balance

67%

$0

$0

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 6-Authority Rec Page 14 of 17



This section is to be completed by Authority Staff.

Last Updated: 6.21.13 Resolution. No. Res. Date:

Project Name:



AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION

Amount


Action Fiscal Year Phase

Future Commitment to:

Trigger:

Deliverables:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Special Conditions:

1.

2.

Notes:

1.

2.

Supervisorial District(s): 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 41.37%

Sub-project detail? No If yes, see next page(s) for sub-project detail.

SFCTA Project Reviewer: P&PD Project # from SGA:

Within two weeks of identifying the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) (anticipated in April 2014), provide

documentation summarizing the decision and the rationale for the LPA selection.

Quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete by task, percent complete for the overall project scope

and a listing of completed deliverables by task.

Upon project completion (anticipated in December 2014), provide Final EIR/EIS, which should include the

Record of Decision (ROD) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Provide Draft EIR/EIS (anticipated in April 2014). This report should include the Alternatives

Analysis (AA).

Provide copy of submittal to the Federal Transit Administration for request to enter Project

Development (expected in January 2015).

The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year

that SFMTA incurs charges.

Prop K proportion of

expenditures - this phase:

Prop AA proportion of

expenditures - this phase:

Amount

This request is contingent upon a concurrent amendment to the BRT/Transit Preferential Streets/Muni Metro

Network 5YPP to add the project's PA&ED project phase in Fiscal Year 2013/14 and reprogram $2,790,598 in

Fiscal Year 2010/11 final design phase funds to the PA&ED phase in Fiscal Year 2013/14. See attached 5YPP

amendment for details.

Additional deliverables will be added upon completion of negotiations with the Jacobs team.

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 6-Authority Rec Page 15 of 17



Insert or attach files of maps, drawings, photos of current conditions, photo compositions, etc. to support

understanding of the project scope and evaluation of how geographic diversity was considered in the project

prioritization process.

This text box and the blue header may be deleted to better accommodate any graphics.

MAPS AND DRAWINGS

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 7-Maps.etc Page 16 of 17



FY of Allocation Action: 2013/14 Current Prop K Request:

Current Prop AA Request:

Project Name:


Signatures

Project Manager Grants Section Contact

Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual

Engineering

2,790,598$

SFCTA, 1455 Van Ness Ave.,

26th Floor, San Francisco, CA

94103

Anna LaForte

Deputy Director for Policy &

Programming

(415) 522-4805

(415) 522-4829

[email protected]

SFCTA, 1455 Van Ness Ave.,

26th Floor, San Francisco, CA

94103

Principal Transportation Planner

(415) 522-4804

[email protected]


Chester Fung

By signing below, we the undersigned verify that: 1) the requested sales tax and/or vehicle registration fee

revenues shall be used to supplement and under no circumstance replace existing local revenues used for

transportation purposes and 2) the requested sales tax and/or vehicle registration fee funds will not be used to

cover expenses incurred prior to Authority Board approval of the allocation.

-$

(415) 522-4829

P:\Prop K\FY1314\ARF Final\GearyBRT Env ARF FINAL.xlsx, 8-Signatures Page 17 of 17

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

SFCTA Geary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis2 PA&ED Allocated $1,647,515 $1,647,515

SFMTA Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)2, 8 PS&E Programmed $2,901,887 $2,901,887

SFCTAGeary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and

Advanced Conceptual Engineering8 PA&ED Pending $2,790,598 $2,790,598

SFMTA Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) CON Programmed $20,000,000 $20,000,000

SFMTA Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) PA&ED Programmed $0 $0

SFMTAVan Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Pre-LPA 30% Project Development

PA&ED Allocated $99,000 $99,000

SFCTAVan Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - EIR/S and 30%

Project Development 1PA&ED Allocated $2,955,000 $2,955,000

SFMTA Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 1,6,7 PS&E Programmed $0 $0

SFCTAVan Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - EIR/S and

Advanced Conceptual Engineering6 PA&ED Allocated $240,432 $240,432

SFMTAVan Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Preliminary

Engineering7 PA&ED Allocated $1,311,847 $1,311,847

SFMTA Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)7 CON Programmed $13,764,944 $13,764,944

SFMTABus Rapid Transit (BRT) Expansion Study (Expanding Muni Rapid Service)

PLAN/ CER Programmed $100,000 $100,000

SFMTA TEP Rapid Network Multi-Corridor Design4 PS&E Programmed $448,860 $448,860

SFMTA N-Judah Customer First4PLAN/ PS&E/ CON

Allocated $716,140 $716,140

SFMTA TEP Rapid Network Multi-Corridor Implementation CON Programmed $5,820,000 $5,820,000

SFMTA TEP Rapid Network - San Bruno Project PLAN/ CER Programmed $98,500 $98,500

SFMTA TEP Rapid Network - San Bruno Project PS&E/ CON Programmed $295,500 $295,500

TPS Corridor Projects

System Development

Total

BRT Corridor Projects

Last Updated: June 18, 2013

Agency Project Name Phase StatusFiscal Year

Programming and Allocations To-dateAmendment for 07.23.13 Board Approval - Pending

2009 Prop K 5YPP - Program of Projects Bus Rapid Transit/Transit Preferential Streets/MTA-MUNI Metro Network (EP 1)

P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2009 Living\5YPP Amended\EP 1 Tab: EP 1 5YPP 06.18.13 Page 1 of 3

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Total





SFMTAHaight Street One-Way to Two-Way Conversion (Octavia Blvd. to Market Street)

PS&E Programmed $233,000 $233,000

SFCTABetter Market Street Re-design and Environmental Review Study

PLAN/ CER, PS&ED

Allocated $790,000 $790,000

SFMTA Local Network Bus - Lincoln & Cross Over PS&E, CON Programmed $300,000 $300,000

SFMTA Bus Bulb at Balboa St. & 37th Avenue CON Allocated $35,000 $35,000

SFMTA Various spot improvements - TPS5 PS&E, CON Programmed $0 $77,000 $100,000 $100,000 $277,000

SFMTA 2013 5YPP Development5 Plan Allocated $23,000 $23,000

SFMTA Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements3 CON Allocated $100,000 $100,000

$0 $8,826,902 $410,000 $16,900,723 $28,810,598 $54,948,223

$0 $5,526,515 $100,000 $2,291,419 $2,790,598 $10,708,532 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300,387 $310,000 $14,609,304 $26,020,000 $44,239,691

$0 $12,614,833 $333,000 $16,177,167 $26,020,000 $55,145,000 $215,074 $215,074 $215,074 $4,003,005 $3,926,005 $3,202,449 $411,851 $411,851

* The 2009 Strategic Plan was amended on June 29, 2010 through Res. 10-74.

FOOTNOTES:

Board Approved Allocation/Appropriation

5YPP Amendment to provide FY 2010/11 funding for Stage 1 of Van BRT - EIR/S and 30% Project Development (Res. 11-31, 12.14.2010)1 Update the phase for the $871,000 in FY 2010/11 Prop K funds for the Van Ness BRT project from planning/conceptual engineering to environmental analysis and preliminary engineering and reprogram a total of $2,084,000 in Fiscal Year 2010/11 from the final design phase of the project to the environmental analysis and preliminary engineering phase.

5YPP Amendment to provide FY 2010/11 funding for the Geary BRT Environmental Analysis project (Res. 11-32, 12.14.2010)

** "Deobligated from prior 5YPP cycles" includes deobligations from allocations approved prior to the current 5YPP period, excluding deobligations incorporated in the first 2009 Strategic Plan amendment, as of December 31, 2012.

ProgrammedPending Allocation/Appropriation

Total Programmed in Amended 2009 Strategic Plan *Deobligated from Prior 5YPP Cycles **

Cumulative Remaining Programming Capacity

Total Deobligated in 5YPPTotal Unallocated in 5YPP

Total Allocated and Pending in 5YPP

TPS Network - Spot/Small Projects

Total Programmed in 5YPP


2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Total





Van Ness BRT Preliminary Engineering: Added project phase in Fiscal Year 2012/13. 8 5YPP amendment to fund Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual Engineering (Resolution 13-XX, XX.XX.2013) Geary BRT Final Design: Reduced programming by $2,790,598 in Fiscal Year 2010/11. Geary BRT Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual Engineering: Added project with $2,790,598 in Fiscal Year 2013/14 for PA&ED phase.

6 5YPP amendment to fund environmental and advanced conceptual engineering for Van Ness BRT (Resolution 13-56, 05.21.2013).Van Ness BRT Final Design: Reduced programming by $240,432 in Fiscal Year 2010/11.Van Ness BRT EIR/S and Advanced Conceptual Engineering: Added project phase in Fiscal Year 2012/13.

7 5YPP amendment to fund preliminary engineering for Van Ness BRT (Resolution 13-56, 05.21.2013).Van Ness BRT Final Design: Reduced programming by $656,901 in Fiscal Year 2010/11.Van Ness BRT Construction: Reduced programming by $654,946 in Fiscal Year 2012/13.

2 Update the phase for the $990,000 in FY 2010/11 Prop K funds for the Geary BRT project from planning/conceptual engineering to environmental analysis and reprogram a total of $657,515 in Fiscal Year 2010/11 from the final design phase of the project to the environmental analysis phase. 3 Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements funding is from the FY 2010/11 Various Spot Improvements- TPS program.4 TEP Rapid Network Multi-Corridor Design was reduced from $1,165,000 to $448,860 to fund SFMTA's N-Judah Customer First project (Res. 13-36, 02.26.2013).5 5YPP amendment to add 2013 5YPP Development (Resolution 13-49, 04.23.2013).

Various spot improvements - TPS: Reduced programming by $23,000 in Fiscal Year 2011/12.2013 5YPP Development: Added project with $23,000 in Fiscal Year 2012/13 planning funds.


Attachment 2.

Prop K FY 2013/14 Capital Budget1

EP # Sponsor Project Name Total FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17

1 SFCTAGeary Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Analysis and Advanced Conceptual Engineering

2,790,598$ 1,860,399$ 930,199$

13 SFMTA Balboa Park Real-Time Transit Information 60,000$ 60,000$

2,850,598$ 1,920,399$ 930,199$ -$ -$

23 SFMTA Paratransit 9,670,000$ 9,670,000$

9,670,000$ 9,670,000$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$

35 DPW Street Repair and Cleaning Equipment 721,500$ 721,500$

37 DPW Public Sidewalk Repair 625,000$ 625,000$

38 SFMTALocal-Track Application-Based Traffic Calming Program

334,020$ 322,950$ 11,070$

38 SFMTA Chinatown (Safe Routes to School Match) 88,810$ 88,810$

38 SFMTAWest Portal Elementary School (Safe Routes to School Match)

49,500$ 49,500$

39 BART Civic Center BART/Muni Bike Station 102,000$ 51,000$ 51,000$

40 SFMTA 6th Street Improvements 180,829$ 161,528$ 19,301$

42 DPW Tree Planting and Maintenance 1,204,429$ 1,204,429$

3,306,088$ 3,224,717$ 81,371$ -$ -$

43 SFE Clean Transportation Program 365,231$ 365,231$

43 SFMTA WalkFirst Investment Strategy 206,000$ 206,000$

44 SFCTA Balboa Park Station Area Circulation Study 59,400$ 59,400$

44 SFCTABroadway Chinatown Neighborhood Transportation Plan

209,174$ 161,064$ 48,110$

839,805$ 791,695$ 48,110$ -$ -$

TOTAL 16,666,491$ 15,606,811$ 1,059,680$ -$

1 This table shows Cash Flow Distribution Schedules for all FY 2013/14 allocations approved to date, along with the current recommended allocation(s).

Shaded lines indicate allocations/appropriations that are part of the current action.

Visitacion Valley Watershed Subtotal

STREET AND TRAFFIC SAFETY

Streets and Traffic Safety Subtotal

TSM/STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

TSM/Strategic Initiatives Subtotal

Cash Flow Distribution

TRANSIT

Transit Subtotal

PARATRANSIT

Paratransit Subtotal

VISITACION VALLEY WATERSHED

Capital Budget FY 1314.xlsx July Capital Budget-2 Page 1 of 2

Attachment 3.

Prop K FY 2013/14 Capital Budget Summary1

Total FY2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17Prior Allocations 13,875,893$ 13,746,412$ 129,481$ -$ -$ Current Request(s) 2,790,598$ 1,860,399$ 930,199$ -$ -$ New Total Allocations 16,666,491$ 15,606,811$ 1,059,680$ -$ -$

1 This table shows total cash flow for all FY 2013/14 allocations approved to date, along with the current recommended allocation(s).

Capital Budget FY 1314.xlsx July CF Summary-2 Page 2 of 2