|
|
|
|
  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
| SFMTA home > About Us > Public Notices and Meetings > SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) > January 6, 2006, minutes | |||
|
City and County of San Francisco FINAL MINUTES Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call (Agenda Item 1). The regular meeting of the Municipal Transportation Agency Citizens’ Advisory Council (MTA CAC) was called to order at 5:36 p.m., Thursday, January 5, 2006. Daniel Murphy (chair) presided. A quorum was present including the following: MTA CAC Members Present at Roll Call: Daniel Murphy (Chair), Steve Ferrario (Vice Chair), Mary Burns, Sue Cauthen, Joan Downey, Emily Drennen, Griffith Humphrey, Bruce Oka, Norman Rolfe, and Daniel Weaver. MTA CAC Members absent at Roll Call: MTA CAC Absent: Art Cimento, Cesar Perez, and Dorris Vincent. MTA Staff (San Francisco Municipal Railway [MUNI] and Department of Parking and Traffic [DPT]) Present: Janet Michaelson (MTA CAC Liaison), Deb Ward (MTA Budget Manager and Acting CFO), Pacifico Paculba (MTA Superintendent of Schedules), Lisa Chow (MTA Project Manager), Gil Montoya (MTA) and Tee Phang (MTA Project Engineer), and Debra Reed (MTA CAC Secretary). Community Representatives Present: Edward Mason 2. Adopt the MTA CAC Minutes of December 1, 2005: Motion to adopt the MTA CAC minutes for December 2005 by Steve Ferrario. 2nd by Bruce Oka CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Burns, Cauthen, Downey, Drennen, Humphrey, Oka, Rolfe, and Weaver). 3. Public Comment – Concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Council and not noted on the agenda: Edward Mason received a reply to his formal complaint citing “shortage of operating personnel” as the reason for Transit unreliability over the past several months. While Transit would be preferred, erratic service has caused many frustrated patrons to often to surrender to driving private autos. Mason suggested that Owl services should be set as a priority, especially in view of lengthy headways. Muni should scale down schedules to fit available personnel with possibly an extra-board to achieve reliable service. 4. Report of the Chair: Daniel Murphy (MTA CAC Chair) Mr. Murphy participated in the selection panel for the Transit Consultant RFQ for the Planning group. Negotiations had begun for a contractor. A letter was forwarded regarding December 2005’s action on the 39 Coit, asking that the MTA CAC be included in the Sunshine Request for the legal opinion. The committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force declined the complaint, however another letter would be sent to review the historical development and to indicate the MTA CAC’s support for the Sunshine Request. Ms. Cauthen invited CAC council members to attend the hearing January 28, 2006, at City Hall, room 408 at 4:00 p.m. Mary Burns presented a report from her Balboa Park Tour. She found the tour to be a real eye-opener. Obstacles include sluggish traffic, pedestrians, lack of maintenance, absentees, union rules, etc., however personnel were dedicated hard workers pushing through a lot of these difficulties. Among her recommendations included in her report, Ms. Burns pointed to the need to educate wheelchair users to board the first car on double trains, that the driver would be attentive to their transit needs. Dan Weaver added that the MTA CAC EMSC had been working with the Maintenance department for the 10-year overhaul program. Joan Downey would be featuring Ms. Burns report at the MTA CAC OCSC meeting. 5. Staff Report: Janet Michaelson Ms. Michaelson reviewed the Staff Report. Staff-Initiated Items6. MTA FY 2006 and FY 2007 Budgets: Deb Ward MTA Budget Manager and Acting CFO Divisional budget submissions were in the reviewing process. Citywide challenges include the 7.5% retirement previously paid by City employees (an increase on the MTA of $11 million, also above the base amount on hand). An increase in mandatory fringe benefits would be anticipated, however, it was expected that the City would not entertain a cost-of-living increase, but a 3% placeholder would be in place. There was no increase in money from General, according to the Controller. The Agency would be receiving $6 million from Proposition 42 of the Governor’s budget, sales tax (AB1107 and TBASP). MTA has been open to solutions, including addressing fare evasion, transit fares, parking rates, citation rates, and a base reduction of .25% to .5% in the non-personnel side of operating budget base. Since the Early Retirement program had ended, there had been a reduction in the employee attrition rate. Questions and Comments from the CAC Norman Rolfe: Since private garage rates were so much more costly than City garages charged, the City should raise their garage rates closer to private garage rates. Steve Ferrario: Mr. Ferrario commented that serious equipment problems were brewing due to aging equipment. The MTA CAC had passed a resolution to encourage the MTA to fund overhaul programs for half-life programs. Would cut backs in non-personnel expenditures include rolling stock maintenance? Response: Yes, however, the MTA had been very cognoscente of, and was a driving factor of the range for the gap, an issue yet needing to be worked out with the FTA regarding midlife rehabilitation of vehicles. The Agency was focusing on rehabs for FY2007 FY2008. Daniel Murphy: Had cost saving ideas such as “stop” elimination, speeding up service, and other suggestions, been studied for value consideration and applied into the FY07 Budget? Response: It was too early in the negotiations, but may be considered at the stage of Mayoral and Board of Supervisory review. However, cost reductions would perhaps be felt in FY08/FY09 rather than the current budget year, after a full-scale review of the system, how its rolled out, how service would be delivered, etc. Mr. Murphy asked for clarification on 0.25% to 0.50% base reduction constituting $6.2K to $12.5K. Response: Each of the Deputy General managers would be asked to identify .005% reduction in their base budget (non-personnel items), as opportunities for efficiency measures. Had the Proposition 42 money from the governor been confirmed? Response: That determination, whether Governor Schwartzenegger would grant or deny the money, could possibly be known as early as Monday, January 9, 2006 or during the May 2006 budget revision. Would the budget need to be completed by May 2006? Response: The MTA Board would adopt the budget by February 28, 2006. While a balanced budget must be submitted to the Mayor by March 1, 2006, budget adjustments may continue through June 2006. The finished Budget would finally be adopted in August 2006. Mr. Murphy announced that the FAC would have a meeting regarding the budget on January 18, 2006. Recommendations would be presented to the MTA Board in February. Mary Burns: Regarding the $10 million preventative maintenance swap that would not take place, was the swap applied in the past? Response: Yes. The MTC only allows 2 swaps in a 12-year period of preventative maintenance, to cover operating costs. Our first swap was applied during the current Budget year. Emily Drennen: Ms. Drennen wanted to repeat last year’s recommendations of raising parking fines and fees. Public Comment No comment from the Public 7. Overhead Wire Replacement Plan: Pacifico Paculba (MTA Superintendent of Schedules), Lisa Chow (MTA Project Manager), Gil Montoya (MTA) and Tee Phang (MTA Project Engineer) Mr. Paculba distributed and reviewed the handout, “Metro Improvements Projects – Subway, starting January 17, 2006.” Ms. Chow explained that SIMI Contractors was expected to complete construction in both the Metro Subway and the Twin Peaks areas by Spring 2008. Hours of construction would take place from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday morning. Mr. Montoya reviewed bus substitution arrangements during construction hours. Questions and Comments from CAC Emily Drennen: Both citizens and policyholders have decided that San Francisco was Transit First. Why would the MTA hesitate to remove 6 parking spaces from Castro Street in order to save cost, time, and to provide a cleaner alternative? Response: It was passenger safety that was the utmost consideration. Diesel buses could easily stop at safer passenger zones avoiding the need for passengers to cross through heavy traffic at Castro and Market streets. Ms. Drennen responded that using a PCO during hours of bus substitution would be a more cost effective safety solution. Explain the hours of construction. Response: The subway must be cleared by 3:30 a.m. to allow testing with trains for hazards, needed safety adjustments, and passenger trains ready for service in their assigned location/positions when morning commuter operations began on time at 6:00 a.m. If construction were to begin at midnight, time for setting up and removing construction equipment would only give the contractor 2 hours of live-construction time. Joan Downey: Why was this project never previously presented to the CAC for service planning? Response: While the project was presented before the CAC a year ago, apologies were offered for not involving the CAC in developments. However service planning was still flexible and evolving. Dan Weaver: Changing from Trolley to Diesel would be confusing to passengers. Mr. Weaver suggested rather than just vacillating vehicles swaps, an informational flyer explaining why the change, would make a smoother transition for passengers during construction. Norman Rolfe: Mr. Rolfe suggested increasing the F line service extending the line to the Cal Trains station, also adding trolley lines to LRVs. Response: Equipment was already at maximum mileage. As an alternative, Breada cars were not compatible with overhead wiring in place, plus inadequate feeder power. Steve Ferrario: Was there a study comparing just completely shutting down the subway for the overhead replacement as a round-the-clock project versus this current plan of a few hours per night. The work could be completed in perhaps a couple of months versus the uncertainty of the 2-year current lengthy plan. Response: Contractors biding for a round-the-clock job were very scarce. On the other hand, extending commence-time hours of construction to 8:00 p.m. rather than 10:00 p.m. was not plausible for transit customers. Council-Initiated Items8. Agenda Planning for 2006: Suggestions from the CAC · Guest speakers from the MTA Board · Presentations from all the various transit advocate groups in San Francisco · Reports: Operational Efficiencies along with impact on the Budget, Vehicle Travel Time using miles per hour as a guide (GIS format), and Pedestrian safety at key bus stops. · Plans for communicating with the public – Maggie Lynch and Anne Richman · Committee reports · DPT consistency of enforcement for Sidewalk Parking and Street Sweeping · Adequate inspector staff · Adequate maintenance staff · Facilities tour · Central Control – Embarcadero tour · DPT facility tour · SF Go Office · 3rd Street Light Rail progress · CAC to go on record, urging the return of the outbound Geary/Van Ness stop from the mid-block location to the original corner location (Mr. Murphy assigned to EMSC) 9. Committee Reports: Mary Burns distributed copies of her report on her Balboa Park MUNI Station tour Questions from the CAC Emily Drennen: How has Service Adjustments impacted headways? Joan Downey: Convert some of the Cole Valley parking meters to 30-minute meters to alleviate double-parking The hazardous intersection at Carl and Willard streets was in need of a better stop arrangement What circumstances would qualify for PCOs as traffic directors 10. Agenda Planning for February 2, 2006 Meeting: · Budget · Meet the new MTA Executive Director, Mr. Nathaniel Ford · A list of CAC accomplishments and impacts for presentation to Mr. Ford 11. Adjournment: 8:00 p.m. Attachments: Agenda Item 2 – Agenda Item 4 –
Agenda Item 7 – Explore: |
|
||
|
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) manages transportation in San Francisco, California. Copyright © 2000-2012 SFMTA. All rights reserved. Updated January 3, 2012
|
|
311