item 7 enclosure plans and programs committee grouped prop ... · table of contents no. project...

Grouped Prop K RequestsJune 21, 2011 Plans and Programs Committee

Table of Contents

No.

Project

Sponsor 1 EP 2 Line Item Description Project Name PhaseProp K Funds

Requested Page No.

1 SFMTA Transit Facilities Enterprise Asset Management System

Planning/ Conceptual Engineering

$200,000 1

2 DPW Upgrades to Major Arterials 19th Avenue Median Improvements Design $123,250 17

3 SFMTA Signals & Signs 15 MPH Zones Near SchoolsPlanning, Design, Construction

$321,700 31

4 SFMTA Traffic Calming Geary Boulevard and Steiner Street Crosswalk Reopening Construction $67,000 57

5 SFMTA Bicycle Circulation/Safety Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements

Planning, Environmental, Design

$165,000 73

6 SFMTA

Pedestrian Circulation/Safety, BRT/Muni Metro, Signals and Signs, Guideways

Mission - Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements Construction $378,470 95

7 SFCTA TDM/ Parking ManagementIntegrated Travel Demand Management (TDM) Public-Private Partnership

Planning, Construction $78,866 119

Total Requested $1,334,286

2 EP stands for Expenditure Plan.

1 Acronyms include: SFMTA, which stands for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (includes the San Francisco Municipal Railway and the Department of Parking and Traffic); DPW, which stands for the Department of Public Works; and SFCTA, which stands for the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.

M:\PnP\2011\Memos\06 June 15 2011\Prop K Grouped Enclosure\TOC Prop K Grouped - PnP 6.21.11

Item 7 Enclosure Plans and Programs Committee June 21, 2011

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

San Francisco County Transportation AuthorityProposition K Sales Tax Program Allocation Request Form

FY of Allocation Action: 2011/12

Project Name:

Implementing Agency:

EXPENDITURE PLAN INFORMATION

Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:

EP Line Number (Primary): 20 Current Request:

Other EP Line Numbers: Supervisorial District(s):

iii. System Maintenance and Renovation (transit)

Enterprise Asset Management System

SCOPE

SFMTA - San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)

A. Transit

citywide

Sufficient scope detail should be provided to allow Authority staff to evaluate the reasonablenes of the proposed

b.1 Facilities-Rehabilitation, upgrade and replacement of existing facilities

$200,000

Gray cells will automatically be filled in.

budget and schedule. If there are prior allocations for the same project, provide an update on progress. 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 priortized 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 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPPs). Justify any inconsistencies with the adopted Prop K Strategic Plan and/or relevant 5YPPs.

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

The SFMTA requests a Prop K allocation of $200,000 to partially fund conceptual/preliminary engineering work for an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system to inventory all of the SFMTA’s major transit assets, providing information on each asset’s condition. The balance of the cost of preliminary engineering ($800,000) will be funded by a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) State of Good Repair (SOGR) grant already programmed by the FTA.

Please see attached background and scope.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 1-Scope Page 1 of 16

1

San Francisco County Transportation Authority Proposition K Sales Tax Program Allocation Request Form

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS Scope F.doc Page 2 of 16

The SFMTA requests a Prop K allocation of $200,000 to fund the local match (20%) portion to the conceptual/preliminary engineering phase of a Federal Transit Administration State of Good Repair (SOGR) grant (total $8,800,000) to implement an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system to inventory and manage all of the SFMTA’s major assets, providing information on an asset’s condition, anticipated service life and renewal. The SFMTA staff will collaborate with a consultant to begin design work in July 2011 by preparing an RFP for an EAM system consultant/vendor. The SFMTA anticipates that the EAM system will be operational by June 2013. SFMTA does not have an EAM system in place to date where capital asset data including service life and renewable dates are in one central location. Currently, data is scattered in over 15 independent databases. Some capital assets have not even been captured and inventoried. There is a need for an EAM system where data can be stored, modified and managed. The current systems do not forecast beyond a 10 year period whereas the EAM system will assess capital need to 30 years and beyond, a horizon consistent with SFCTA’s and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) long-range plans. The scope of the project is to develop and implement EAM system which will capture, populate, count, inventory, locate, identify assets and integrate the collected data into a state-of-the-art asset inventory and EAM system with an asset management system module. For the conceptual/preliminary engineering phase, the SFMTA As-Needed consultant will provide the following services:

1 Project Initiation & Planning a. Develop project plan b. Develop the project scope c. Identify Agency stakeholders and develop core teams specific to each functional area of the

implementation d. Develop goals and objectives of EAM system

2 Conduct needs assessment a. Assess current state of asset management

i. Conduct baseline assessment ii. Review current business practices, systems

b. Data gap analysis i. Review the existing inventories ii. Develop strategy to collect additional information

3 Future state of asset management a. Define future state of asset management

i. Identify and document retainable practices and systems ii. Identify and document to be developed practices and systems

b. Provide standards for asset inventory database such as equipment numbering, types, and classes which will be verified for referential integrity prior to importation into SFMTA databases.

c. Define functional requirements, customization and integration needs. d. Analyze current vendors.

4 Develop potential server and database hardware needs 5 Cost Estimate

a. Prepare baseline cost estimate for EAM system for linear assets b. Prepare cost estimates for options for facilities, fleet, traffic c. Prepare cost estimate for server and database hardware

6 Prepare Conceptual Engineering Report 7 Develop RFP for the solution selection

2



8 Oversee solution selection a. Develop evaluation criteria

For the conceptual/preliminary engineering phase the SFMTA staff will provide the following services:

1 Project coordination a. Provide access to stakeholders

Following conceptual/preliminary engineering, for the detailed design/implementation phase the SFMTA As-Needed consultant will provide the following services:

1 Implementation oversight 2 Provide a system test plan to ensure the system configuration meets the functional requirements 3 Provide a maintenance plan

As part of the implementation phase the EAM vendor will

1 Migrate all legacy systems and maps into the new system 2 Develop and implement required training to ensure a successful implementation and operation

of the new system 3 Install and configure the server, client software 4 Develop an interface to the Geographic Information System (GIS) that works in conjunction

with the SFMTA's GIS application. The SFMTA staff will assist in the population of the inventory database during the implementation phase.

1 Inventory existing assets to be migrated to future system a. Inventory of existing databases b. Inventory of as-built drawings c. Field verification of existing assets

Consultant deliverables to the SFMTA will include monthly progress reports, final conceptual engineering report, and final request for proposals for a design/build contract with a vendor. The SFMTA’s infrastructures, facilities, and fleet vary in age and condition with some facilities over 75 years old and infrastructure elements over 100 years old. The rolling stock (cable car excepted) and remaining assets are younger, but, many units are near or at the end of their replacement cycle. The EAM system will enhance the SFMTA’s ability to assess all of these assets to support maintenance needs and implement future capital projects. The system will be scalable by implementing selected individual asset class modules and developing the associated inventory to address the other assets within SFMTA as additional funding is available. To date, the SFMTA has established a Capital Asset Management (CAM) program to integrate asset management and inventory concepts with capital planning, capital investment, capital budgeting and capital project prioritization to facilitate the rehabilitation, replacement, and reinvestment of its physical assets. However, to effectively and efficiently operate its CAM program, it is essential that the SFMTA replace its existing independent and largely unconnected databases that contain information on the status of the SFMTA’s assets with a centralized system. By utilizing an EAM system, the SFMTA will be able to store data on age, condition, and needs of different asset types. This will allow for a comprehensive assessment and projection of capital improvement needs for today and in the future. The Conceptual Engineering phase will identify the range of capital assets which will be included in the scope of the RFP for the EAM System solution and future options to be exercised if funding is available. The proposed EAM System will focus initially on the asset inventory and the condition of capital assets such as

3



facilities, stations and rail/track/guideways which have been partially captured to date. In addition to the transit functions of the SFMTA, the options modules for the EAM system will also include the transportation management function such as parking garages, traffic signals and bike facilities that are included within the umbrella of the SFMTA. The inventory efforts since 2007 have concentrated on developing reliable estimates from the data bases available. The future inventory will be at a much finer detail involving actuals and components of items. Project Benefits and Prioritization The SFMTA is the largest public transit agency in the Bay Area and the seventh largest in the United States with over 200 million riders annually. The agency's multi-modal network of diesel/trolley/biofuel/hybrid buses, light rail vehicles, historic streetcars and the famous cable cars carries commuters throughout San Francisco and serves a vital intermodal function by connecting to other local transportation services such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), SamTrans and AC Transit. Therefore, SFMTA plays a significant role in the community and its capital assets must be repaired and renewed constantly. The implementation of this project will track the service life and renewable cycles so as to adequately and efficiently maintain the assets to a SOGR. This will form a foundation for the Agency’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), which in turn informs the MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan. The EAM system will reduce the risk of assets from failing during service. Capital asset detailed assessments can be made, the needs of the agency will be better understood, and consequently the riders and the community will be better served. The EAMS project is also a key element in SFMTA’s response to the Federal Transit Administration’s SOGR requirements. The EAM system project is included in the Prop K Transit – Facilities 5YPP. This project was added to the 5YPP by the SFCTA Board on February 15, 2011 as part of the larger funding swap related to funding the Central Subway project. The funds for the EAM system were redirected from the Islais Creek Bus Maintenance Facility project where a favorable bid environment resulted in substantial cost savings.

4


FY 2011/12

Project Name:


ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

Type : Completion Date

(mm/dd/yy)

Status:

Start Date End DateQuarter Fiscal Year Quarter Fiscal Year

1 2011/12 3 2011/12



Categorically Exempt

PROJECT DELIVERY MILESTONES

N/A

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). Additonal schedule detail may be provided in the text box below.

Planning/Conceptual Engineering

Prepare Bid Documents 2 2011/12 3 2011/12

4 2011/12 4 2012/134 2012/13

Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred) 4 2013/14

SCHEDULE COORDINATION/NOTES

Environmental Studies (PA&ED)

Provide project delivery milestones for each sub-project included in the current request, if appropriate. Describe coordination with other project schedules or external deadlines (e.g., obligation deadlines) that impact the project schedule, if relevant.

Design Engineering (PS&E)

Start Procurement (e.g. rolling stock)Project Completion (i.e., Open for Use)

R/W Activities/Acquisition

Advertise ConstructionStart Construction (e.g., Award Contract)

Project delivery milestones are as follows:1. Project Initiation 7-11/12 to 8-11/12 CE/PE2. Conduct needs assesment 9-11/12 to 11-11/12 CE/PE3. Develop RFP 12-11/12 to 2-11/12 CE/PE4. Solution Selection 2-11/12 to 5-11/12 Design/Procurement5. System implementation 6-11/12 to 5-12/13 Design/Procurement6. SFMTA inventorying of existing assets

6-11/12 to 5-12/13 Design/Procurement

Authority Note: Contract award will take place during the CE/PE phase.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 2-Schedule Page 5 of 16

5


FY 2011/12

Project Name:


COST SUMMARY BY PHASE - CURRENT REQUEST

Cost for Current Request/Phase

Yes/No Total CostYesNoNoNo

$1,000,000Planning/Conceptual Engineering

Prop K - Current Request

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 Prop K request.

$200,000Environmental Studies (PA&ED)Design Engineering (PS&E)R/W Activities/Acquisition



NoNoNo

COST SUMMARY BY PHASE - ENTIRE PROJECT

Total Cost Source of Cost Estimate$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$11,000,000 Expected Useful Life: 25 Years

$1,000,000 $200,000

Based on 2007 capital asset study.

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.


ConstructionProcurement (e.g. rolling stock)Operations



Total:Operations


Construction

Procurement (e.g. rolling stock) Based on 2007 capital asset study and review of vendor pricing.

Enter expected useful life of completed capital project (e.g., use audit number).Enter expected useful life of completed capital project (e.g., use audit number).

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 3-Cost Page 6 of 16

6

Transportation AuthorityProposition K Sales Tax Program Allocation Request Form

Conceptual/Preliminary Engineering PhaseSFMTA 1

No. of Total Total Cost/ Overhead FullyPosition Title/ No. of Hours No. of No. of Hour Multiplier Burdened

Position Code FTEs Per Week Weeks Hours (Average) Cost/Hour Total CostProject Manager/

9181 1 4 38 152 $79 311% $245 $37,227Junior Engineer/

5201 1 4 38 152 $38 311% $119 $18,105Full Engineer/

5208 1 4 38 152 $58 311% $181 $27,548Admin/

1844 1 4 38 152 $39 311% $122 $18,545Subtotal SFMTA 4 16 152 608 $167 101,424

Consultant 2 hoursProject Initiation & Planning 320 $73,538Conduct needs assessment 848 $194,875Future state of asset management 848 $194,875Develop potential server and database hardware 80 $18,384Cost Estimates 216 $49,638Prepare Conceptual Engineering Report 240 $55,153Develop RFP for the solution selection 240 $55,153Oversee solution selection 80 $18,384

Subtotal for Consultant 2,872 $660,000

Other Direct CostsComputers / workstations (2) $6,000Reproduction (bid documents) $9,000

Subtotal Other Direct Costs $15,000

Contingency (30%) $232,927

Total for CE/PE Phase * $1,009,352

* Round down to $1,000,000

Enterprise Asset Management System Local Match to SOGR Federal Grant

1 See table of hours by by task on next page.2 SFMTA will use an existing on-call consultant

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F; 4-Major Line Item Budget Page 7 of 16

7


Design/Implementation PhaseImplementation Support

No. of Total Total Cost/ Overhead FullyPosition Title/ No. of Hours No. of No. of Hour Multiplier Burdened

Position Code FTEs Per Week Weeks Hours (Average) Cost/Hour Total CostProject Manager/

9181 1 2 52 104 $79 311% $245 $25,471Junior Engineer/

5201 2 32 52 3,328 $38 311% $119 $396,408Full Engineer/

5208 2 24 52 2,496 $58 311% $181 $452,363Admin/

1844 1 6 52 312 $39 311% $122 $38,066

Subtotal SFMTA 6 64 208 6,240 $146 $912,308

Consultant $960,000

Contingency for implementation support (30%) 561,692

Total Implementation Support $2,434,000

EAMS Vendor ContractTotal Cost

EAMS Software & Implementation $5,900,000

Contingency for EAMS software and vendor (30%) $1,770,000

Subtotal for EAMS software and vendor $7,670,000

Total Design/Implementation Phase * $10,104,000* Round down to $10,000,000

Project Total $11,000,000

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F; 4-Major Line Item Budget Page 8 of 16

8


Enterprise Asset Management System Conceptual/Preliminary Engineering

Task Hours TotalsSFMTA Staff 600

Project coordination 600 Provide access to stakeholders 600

Consultant Staff 2,872 Project Initiation & Planning 320

Develop project plan 80 Develop the project scope 80

Identify Agency stakeholders and develop core teams specific to each functional area of the implementation 80 Develop goals and objectives of EAM system 80

Conduct needs assessment 848 Assess current state of asset management 280 Conduct baseline assessment 280 Review current business practices, systems 160 Data gap analysis verification/revision 128

Future state of asset management 848 Define future state of asset management 160 Identify and document retainable practices and systems 160 Identify and document to be developed practices and systems 160 Provide standards for asset inventory database such as equipment numbering, types, and classes which will be verified for referential integrity prior to importation into SFMTA databases. 160 Define functional requirements, customization and integration needs. 128 Analyze current vendors 80

Develop potential server and database hardware 80 Cost Estimate 216

Prepare baseline cost estimate for EAM system for linear assets 80 Prepare cost estimates for options for facilities, fleet, traffic 80 Prepare cost estimates for server and database hardware 56

Prepare Conceptual Engineering Report 240 Develop RFP for the solution selection 240 Oversee solution selection 80

Develop evaluation criteria 80

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F; CER-PE Page 9 of 16

9


Enterprise Asset Management System Detailed Design - Implementation

Task Total HoursSFMTA Staff 6,200

Project coordination 600Support Inventory collection by vendor 600Inventory existing assets to be migrated to future system

Inventory of existing databases 1,000 Inventory of as-built drawings 2,000

Field verification of existing assets 2,000

Consultant Staff 5,800 Implementation oversightProvide a system test plan to ensure the system configuration meets the functional requirementsProvide a maintenance plan

Vendor Staff included in vendor priceSoftware Implementation

Migrate all legacy systems and maps into the new system Install and configure the server, client softwareDevelop an interface to the Geographic Information System (GIS) that works in conjunction with the SFMTA's GIS application.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F; DD-Implementation Page 10 of 16

10


FY

Project Name:


FUNDING PLAN - FOR CURRENT PROP K REQUEST

Prop K Funds Requested:

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

Strategic Plan Amount for Requested FY:

2011/12

If the amount requested is inconsistent (e.g., greater than) with the 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 wil

$200,000


$200,000

$6,974,000


The 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) amount includes $200,000 in Prop K funds available for allocation in FY 2011/12 for the conceptual/preliminary engineering phase of SFMTA's Enterprise Asset Management System.

Programmed$200,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

Actual Leveraging - This Phase:Expected Leveraging per Expenditure Plan Total from Cost worksheet

Enter the funding plan for the phase or phases for which Prop K funds are currently being requested. Totals should match those shown on the Cost worksheet.

Prop K sales tax

$0

89.66%

$0

Federal State of Good Repair Grant (Section 5307)

Allocated TotalPlannedFund Source$200,000

$800,000

$0

80.00%

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$0Total:

The Strategic Plan amount is the total amount programmed in the Facilities-SFMTA (MUNI) category in FY 2011/12 ($3,092,000) and $3,882,000 in unused programming capacity from FY 2010/11.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 5-Funding Page 11 of 16

11


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

%

20.00%

FUNDING PLAN - FOR ENTIRE PROJECT (ALL PHASES)

Programmed$2,200,000$8,800,000

$11,000,000

Actual Leveraging - Entire Project:Expected Leveraging per Expenditure Plan Total from Cost worksheet

$ Amount

$800,000

Required Local Match

$0

80.00%

$8,800,000

89.66%

$0

$$200,000.00

Total

$11,000,000

$0 $11,000,000$0$0

AllocatedPlanned$2,200,000

Federal SOGR GrantProp K sales tax

Federal SOGR GrantFund Source

$0.00

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.Fund Source

Total:

FISCAL YEAR CASH FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR CURRENT PROP K REQUEST


Sponsor Request - Proposed Prop K Cash Flow Distribution Schedule% Reimbursed

Annually

100.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Cash Flow

$200,000

$0$200,000 $0

Balance

$0$0

$200,000

Use the table below to enter the proposed cash flow distribution schedule (e.g. the maximum Prop K funds that are guaranteed to be available for reimbursement each fiscal year) for the current request. If the schedule is more aggressive than the Strategi

$0

FY 2011/12

Total:

Fiscal Year

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 5-Funding Page 12 of 16

12


This section is to be completed by Authority Staff.

Last Updated: 06.14.11 Resolution. No. Res. Date:

Project Name:

Implementing Agency:Phase:

Prop K Recommended: Allocation

Total:

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

EP Line%

Reimbursable

20M 100 00%




Amount$200,000

Balance

AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION

Notes (e.g., justification for multi-phase recommendations, notes for multi-EP line item or multi-sponsor recommendations):

$200 000 $0FY 2011/12

Fiscal Year Maximum Reimbursement

$200,000

20M 100.00%0.00%

0.00%0.00%100%

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

EP Line Fiscal YearMaximum

Reimbursement

20M FY 2011/12 $200,000

$200,000

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

Balance

100%

Cumulative % Reimbursable

$0

$0

$0

9/30/2012

Phase

100%

100%

$200,000


$0

$0

Total:

$0

$200,000 $0FY 2011/12

100%

$0

Total:

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 6-Authority Rec Page 13 of 16

13




Project Name:

Implementing Agency: SFMTA - San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)



Action Fiscal Year PhaseFuture Commitment to:

Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.

3.

Amount

Upon completion of the CER (30% design), provide the following: CER, updated scope, schedule and

In addition to the requirements described in the Standard Grant Agreement, quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete by task, including both SFMTA-led and consultant-led tasks.

On execution of consultant contract or (if existing on-call consultant is used ) change order, provide a copy of the final document with any updates to project scope, schedule, budget, consultant tasks, etc.

4.

5.

Special Conditions:1.

2.

Notes:1.

2.

SFMTA may not expend contingency funds until Authority staff releases them (see sub-project 120.xxxxxx below) pending receipt of a report on expenditures and progress to date, as well as a justification for use of the contingency and a corresponding scope, schedule and budget.

The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA-MUNI labor expenses up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year that SFMTA incurs charges. The approved FY 2010/11 overhead multiplier rate for SFMTA-MUNI is 3.11 and 2.21 for SFMTA-DPT.

budget for the entire project.

Prior to advertising the design/build contract, provide a draft RFP to the Authority for comment, with sufficient time to incorporate comments before advertising.


14




Project Name:

Implementing Agency: SFMTA - San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)



Supervisorial District(s):citywide 20.00%

Sub-project detail? Yes If yes, see next page(s) for sub-project detail.

SFCTA Project Reviewer: CP Project # from SGA:

SUB-PROJECT DETAIL

Prop K proportion of expenditures - this phase:

1. Print this page only if the recommendation includes multiple subjects (e.g. 5 bike projects covered by one allocation). Replicate table as needed for additional sub-projects. 2. If deliverables or special conditions apply to a particular sub-project, be sure to note that specifically in the prior section, as well as below as needed for clarity.3 Be sure that total recommended allocation/appropriation amounts by fiscal year etc match prior page

Sub-Project # from SGA: 120.910034 Name:



Reimbursement

20M FY 2011/12 $153,500

$153,500

Sub-Project # from SGA: 120.910035 Name:



Reimbursement

20M FY 2011/12 $46,500

$46,500

Total:

Planning/Conceptual Engineering 23% $153,500


EAMS Contingency

BalancePhase

Total:23% $153,500

77% $46,500Planning/Conceptual Engineering 77% $46,500

EAMS CE/PE

PhaseCumulative % Reimbursable Balance

3. Be sure that total recommended allocation/appropriation, amounts by fiscal year, etc. match prior page.


15


FY of Allocation Action: 2011/12 Current Request:

Project Name:


Signatures

Project Manager Grants Section Contact

Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:


$200,000

Joel C. Goldberg

Grants Procurement Manager

(415) 701-4499

Project Manager

(415) 701-4298


Drew Howard

By signing below, we the undersigned verify that: 1) sales tax revenues shall be used to supplement and under no circumstance replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes and 2) the requested sales tax funds will not be used to cover expenses incurred prior to Authority Board approval of the allocation.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 8-Signatures Page 16 of 16

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

1 South Van Ness Avenue, 3rd FL, San Francisco, CA 94103

( )

(415) 701-4734

[email protected]

1 South Van Ness Avenue, 8th FL, San Francisco, CA 94103

( )

[email protected]

Please sign in blue ink.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-MUNI EAMS F, 8-Signatures Page 16 of 16

16



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:



19th Avenue Median Improvements

SCOPE

Department of Public Works

C. Street & Traffic Safety

4

i. Major Capital Projects (Streets)


b.6 Upgrades to major arterials (including 19th Avenue)

$123,250

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. 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 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPPs). Justify any inconsistencies with the adopted Prop K Strategic Plan and/or relevant 5YPPs.


The 19th Avenue Median Improvements Project will implement a recommended element of the 19th Avenue Park Presidio Neighborhood Transportation Plan. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Authority) has developed and is working to implement the Plan in conjunction with partner agencies, including San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) and the community. This complex corridor, serving both as California State Route 1 and as a local urban arterial with multiple types of adjoining land uses, must accommodate bus transit, auto traffic, and non-motorized travel.The proposed 19th Avenue Median Improvement Project area stretches 15 blocks from Lincoln Way to Wawona Street. The median improvement project is a direct result of a collaborative community planning process of the Authority's Plan which started in 2006. The recommendations for planted medians came out of this public process. The Study's recommendations in the Final Report were adopted by the Authority Board in spring 2008 and are aimed at improving pedestrian crossing conditions, sidewalk conditions, and bus and traffic operations. The 19th

Avenue Median Improvements Project is funded by a Federal Earmark (DEMO ID CA786, Sec. 112 Surface Transporation Projects) and City of San Francisco General Funds. The current request is for $123,250, which will provide the funds necessary to complete the design engineering for the project.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 1-Scope :FY 10/11 Page 1 of 13

17


Background 19th Avenue is one of San Francisco’s major transportation corridors. As State Route 1, it is part of the state highway system linking San Francisco with San Mateo County to the south and Marin County to the north. Despite its importance as a major thoroughfare and as a gateway into San Francisco and the Sunset District, 19th Avenue is not an attractive street, particularly between Sloat Blvd. and Lincoln Ave. The five-foot wide median is paved in concrete for its entire length between intersections, and there are few street trees in the sidewalk areas. On January 2, 2001, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted Resolution 34-01, urging the Department of Public Works to perform a feasibility study of landscaping the 19th Avenue median from Sloat Boulevard to Lincoln Avenue. SFDPW also partnered with the Authority on its 19th Avenue Park Presidio Neighborhood Transportation Plan planning process which consisted of technical analysis, conceptual design, and community and agency outreach. Two rounds of community workshops informed the conceptual design and project identification process, each consisting of presentations to the Richmond and Sunset neighborhoods. The first round, conducted in Summer 2006, described existing conditions and solicited ideas for improvements. The Study then produced a set of conceptual designs for six designated ‘prototype' intersections that were meant to reflect typical conditions in the corridor showing median planting at the intersections in the Project Area. The second round, held in Summer 2007, sought community input on the conceptual designs. The Study finalized designs after incorporating feedback and identified a corridor-wide, prioritized improvement project list.

Project GoalsIn keeping with the goals of Authority’s 19th Avenue Park Presidio Neighborhood Transportation Plan to manage and calm traffic operations and to improve streetscape conditions, low-growing median plantings are proposed along the full length of the 15 medians along 19th Avenue from Lincoln to Wawona. DesignImprovements to the full length of each of the 15 medians between Lincoln to Wawona include removing paving in the 5’ wide medians, amending soil and adding plants. The Authority’s 19th Avenue Park Presidio Neighborhood Transportation Plan limited median planting to the 100’ on each side of the intersections. This proposal includes planting the full length of the medians. The plantings will conform to Caltrans design standards for height in order to preserve sight lines. In addition to beautifying the street, the plantings could have a traffic calming effect along the corridor, particularly at the intersections. Because of Caltrans horizontal clearance requirements, trees cannot be provided within the corridor’s center median. There will be no changes to the existing curbs or lighting. There will be no irrigation.

5YPP amendment Funding this project will require a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $123,250 from $500,000 programmed in FY 2011/12 to the 19th Avenue Bulb-out (Lincoln - Junipero Serra) project to this (new) project. In July 2011, DPW will submit a second request for the construction phase of this project totaling $173,250. The 19th Avenue Bulb-out project is currently in the preliminary engineering/environmental clearance phase and is being led by the Authority, working with DPW. The project is delayed so that the City can obtain design exception approvals for bus bulbs from Caltrans for the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project (design exception approvals will then be sought for 19th Avenue), and to coordinate with SFMTA's 19th Avenue bus stop relocation project, which has also been delayed. As noted above, this project is a recommendation in the 19th Avenue Park Presidio Neighborhood Transportation Plan.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 1-Scope :FY 10/11 Page 2 of 13

18


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


4 10/11 1 11/12Prepare Bid Documents

2 11/12 3 11/124 11/12 N/A N/A

3 11/12 1 13/14Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred)

Design is already underway in order to meet timely use of funds deadlines. PS&E will be 100% complete by September 2011. The request for construction funds will be submitted in August 2011 to secure obligation of the Federal Earmark (DEMO ID CA786, Sec. 112 Surface Transporation Projects) funds. DPW anticipates submitting a Prop K request of $173,250 for the construction phase in July 2011.







Underway 08/12/11

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.







P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 2-Schedule :FY 10/11 Page 3 of 13

19


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




Yes/No Total Cost

yes


Total Cost Source of Cost Estimate

$173,250

$1,163,508

$1,336,758 Expected Useful Life: NA Years Enter expected useful life of completed capital

project (e.g., use audit number).

$173,250 $123,250

$123,250



ConstructionProcurement (e.g. rolling stock)








Design Engineering (PS&E)R/W Activities/Acquisition

$173,250

Procurement (e.g. rolling stock)


Total:

Engineer's estimateConstruction

Engineer's estimateDesign Engineering (PS&E)R/W Activities/Acquisition

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 3-Cost :FY 10/11 Page 4 of 13

20


MAJOR LINE ITEM BUDGET

Median Improvement Design Budget, Design Engineering

Position HoursUnburdened Salary/Hour

Overhead Multiplier

Fully Burdened Salary/Hour

FTE Ratio Total Cost

Sr. Land. Arch 5211 6 $67 2.6705 $180 0.00 $1,081Land Arch 5274 156 $58 2.6705 $155 0.08 $24,235Land Arch 5272 288 $50 2.6705 $134 0.14 $38,714Land Arch 5262 344 $43 2.6705 $115 0.17 $39,429Proj Manager I 200 $54 2.6705 $144 0.10 $28,759Proj Manager II 100 $58 2.6705 $155 0.05 $15,535Sr. Engineer5211 18 $67 2.6705 $180 0.01 $3,243Engineer 143 $58 2.6705 $156 0.07 $22,254Total Design Eng. 1,255 0.6 $173,250

Construction Estimate: All construction work performed through a contract.Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total

Plant Material 5 Gal. Each 30$ 4500 135,000$ Gravel Mulch Cu. Yd. 285$ 448.35 127,780$ Amended Backfill- 18" depth Cu. Yd. 85$ 2019 171,615$ Maintenance - 1 Year Lump Sum 4,000$ 15 60,000$

Demo Concrete Median Sq. ft. 9$ 36,000 324,000$ Traffic Control 40,920$ Mobilization 40,920$

Construction Subtotal 900,235$

Construction Contingency 10% 90,023$ Construction and Contingency Subtotal 990,258$ Construction Management and Support 173,250$ 19% of contractTotal Construction, Contingency and Construction Support 1,163,508$ Total Design Engineering 173,250$ 19% of contractTotal Project Cost 1,336,758$

1. Provide a major line item budget, with subtotals by phase. More detail is required the farther along the project is in the developmenphase. 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 bposition 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.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 4-Major Line Item Budget :FY 10/11 Page 5 of 13

21


FY

Project Name:






Programmed

$0


Prop K sales tax


$50,000

$0

$123,250

$123,250

$123,250

$0

Planned

This project is not in the 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) for New and Upgraded Streets. Funding the project requires a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $123,250 in Fiscal Year 2011/12 funds from the 19th Avenue Bus Bulb-outs (Lincoln - Junipero Serra) project to the subject project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

The Strategic Plan amount is the Fiscal Year 2011/12 amount for the entire New and Upgraded Streets category, including $1,500,000 in Fiscal Year 2011/12 funds, $1,000,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2010/11 funds and $945,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2009/10 funds.

Fund Source


2011/12

$173,250


28.86%

Total

$0

$50,000

$173,250

$123,250

$0

$3,445,000

If the amount requested is inconsistent (e.g., greater than) with the 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.

Allocated

$0

Total: $50,000

82.86%

SF General Fund

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 6 of 13

22


Is Prop K providing local match funds for a state or federal grant? No

%


Programmed

$990,000

$990,000





Annually

100.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

FY 2011/12

Total:

Total:

Fiscal Year

Allocated

$ $ Amount

Federal EarmarkSF General Funds

$123,250

$0$123,250

$0

$0

$0$0

$1,336,758

$1,336,758

Use the table below to enter the proposed cash flow distribution schedule (e.g. the maximum Prop K funds that are guaranteed to be available for reimbursement each fiscal year) for the current request. If the schedule is more aggressive than the 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.

Balance

$123,250

$296,500

82.86%

Cash Flow

77.82%

$0$0

$50,258

$0$0

$50,258


$0.00

$990,000

$0.00

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.

Planned$296,500 $296,500

Fund Source TotalProp K

$50,258

Fund Source

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 7 of 13

23




Project Name:



Total:

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

Line%

Reimbursable

30 100.00%0.00%

0.00% 0.00%

0.00%100%

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

Line Fiscal YearMaximum

Reimbursement

30 FY 2011/12 $123,250

$123,250


$0$0

Balance

Amount$123,250

Maximum Reimbursement






Balance

100% $0

$0

Total:


FY 2011/12

Fiscal Year

$123,250

Total: $123,250

Design Engineering (PS&E)Phase

$123,250

$0$0

$0100%

100%

100%

100%$0

3/31/2012

$0$0

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 6-Authority Rec :FY 10/11 Page 8 of 13

24




Project Name:






Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.


Notes:1.

Supervisorial District(s): 4 71.14%

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

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


The recommended allocation is contingent upon a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $123,250 in FY 2011/12 funds currently programmed to the 19th Avenue Bulb-outs (Lincoln - Junipero Serra) project to the subject project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

Amount

See attached photos of typical before conditions.

Upon project completion, provide evidence of completion of 100% design (e.g., copy of certifications page).

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 6-Authority Rec :FY 10/11 Page 9 of 13

25


This sheet can be used to provide additional detail or notes to support the other worksheets.Please delete sheet if it is not needed.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 7-Maps :FY 10/11 Page 10 of 13

26



27



28



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:


$123,250

30 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102

Simone Jacques

Transportation Financial Analyst

415-558-4034

415-558-4519

[email protected]

30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 5100San Francisco, CA 94102

Project Manager

415-558-4004

[email protected]


Mary Muszynski


415-558-4519

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\DPW 19th Ave Median Improv F.xls, 8-Signatures :FY 10/11 Page 13 of 13

29

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

DPW

Gre

at H

ighw

ay E

rosio

n Re

pair

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

,330

,000

$1,3

30,0

00$0

SFCT

ABi

-Cou

nty

& V

isita

cion

Vall

ey

Wat

ersh

ed Im

prov

emen

ts

TBD

Prog

ram

med

$945

,000

$945

,000

SFCT

ABi

-Cou

nty

& V

isita

cion

Vall

ey

Wat

ersh

ed Im

prov

emen

ts

TBD

Prog

ram

med

$1,0

00,0

00$1

,000

,000

SFCT

AU

S 10

1 Ca

ndle

stic

k In

terc

han g

e PS

RPL

AN

Pend

ing

$55,

000

$55,

000

SFCT

ABi

-Cou

nty

& V

isita

cion

Vall

ey

Wat

ersh

ed Im

prov

emen

ts

TBD

Prog

ram

med

$1,0

00,0

00$1

,000

,000

BiCo

unty

&V

isita

cion

Vall

ey

Visi

taci

on V

alley

Wat

ersh

ed (E

P 27

)

New

an

d U

pgr

aded

Str

eets

(E

P 2

6-30

)

Gre

at H

ighw

ay E

rosio

n Re

pair

(EP

26)

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Age

ncy

Phas

eSt

atus

Proj

ect N

ame

Fisc

al Y

ear

Tota

l

SFCT

ABi

-Cou

nty

& V

isita

cion

Vall

ey

Wat

ersh

ed Im

prov

emen

ts

TBD

Prog

ram

med

$2,0

00,0

00$2

,000

,000

$0

SFCT

A/D

PW19

th A

venu

e Bu

lb-o

uts (

Linc

oln

- Ju

nipe

ro S

erra

)1PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$376

,750

$376

,750

DP W

19th

Ave

nue

Med

ian Im

prov

emen

ts1

PS&

EPe

ndin

g$1

23,2

50$1

23,2

50SF

CTA

/DP W

19th

Ave

nue

Bulb

-out

s (Li

ncol

n -

Juni

pero

Ser

ra)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$1,0

00,0

00$1

,000

,000

$2,2

75,0

00

$1,0

55,0

00

$1,5

00,0

00

$3,0

00,0

00

$0

$7,8

30,0

00

$1,3

30,0

00

$55,

000

$123

,250

$0

$0

$1

,508

,250

$9

45,0

00

$1,0

00,0

00

$1,3

76,7

50

$3,0

00,0

00

$0

$6,3

21,7

50

$2,3

30,0

00

$1,0

00,0

00

$1,5

00,0

00

$3,0

00,0

00

$0

$7,8

30,0

00

$55,

000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

am

ende

d on

Mar

ch 3

0, 2

010

thro

ugh

Res.

10-5

2.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

Oth

er U

pgra

des t

o M

ajor A

rteria

ls (E

P 30

)

1 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

fund

des

ign

of th

e ne

w 1

9th

Ave

nue

Med

ian Im

prov

emen

ts p

roje

ct (R

esol

utio

n X

X-X

X, X

X.X

X.X

X).

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

Am

ende

d 20

09 S

trat

egic

Pla

nC

umul

ativ

e R

emai

ning

Pro

gram

min

g C

apac

ity

Tot

al U

nallo

cate

d

19th

Ave

nue

Bulb

-out

s (Li

ncol

n - J

unip

ero

Serr

a) re

duce

d fr

om $

500,

000

to $

376,

750.

Prog

ram

med

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 2

6-30

Ta

b: E

P26-

30 5

YPP

05.1

9.11

Page

1 o

f 1

30



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:



a. Signals and Signs

$321,700




iii. System Maintenance and Renovations (streets)


Please see attached MS Word document.

15 MPH Zones Near Schools

SCOPE

SFMTA - Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT)


citywide

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 1-Scope :FY 10/11 Page 1 of 24

31


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF Scope.doc

15 mph Speed Zones Near Schools The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) requests a Prop K allocation of $321,700 to fund the planning, design, and implementation of 15 miles per hour (mph) school zones at all eligible schools in San Francisco (estimated at 200 locations). Background Transportation research has demonstrated that serious and fatal injuries suffered by people walking are often preventable when careful attention is paid to the design, operation and enforcement of the transportation system. One of the most important steps to reduce fatal and serious injuries is designing streets so that motor vehicles travel at speeds that are safe for everyone, including pedestrians. When vehicles are traveling at 30 mph, studies show that pedestrians are six times more likely to die than in collisions with vehicles traveling at 20 mph or less. The prima facie speed limit on San Francisco Streets is 25 mph, unless signs are posted to dictate otherwise. The SFMTA has undertaken many efforts to reduce driving speed to posted speed limits. These efforts include the installation of speed humps, traffic circles, median islands, curb bulbs, edgelines, road diets, and traffic signal modifications. In some instances, the SFMTA has even lowered posted speed limits using standards set by the State of California based on the prevailing speed of traffic. In December 2010, Mayor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Directive 10-3 regarding Pedestrian Safety in San Francisco. This Directive set a goal of reducing serious and fatal pedestrian injuries by 25% by the year 2016 and by 50% by the year 2021. The Directive also issued a number of specific near term action items, including implementing 15 mph speed limit signage at all schools in San Francisco, as allowed by state standards. The SFMTA is moving quickly to take timely advantage of using this new tool to reduce collisions near schools. Assembly Bill 321 (AB 321), passed in 2007, modified California Vehicle Code Section 22358.4 (CVC 22358.4), allowing local authorities to implement 15 mph speed limit zones within 500 feet of schools, while children are present. The bill and the CVC section go on to define what is intended by the presence of children. The CVC language is clear in its intent to enforce 15 mph at all school locations during arrival, lunch and departure times. The 15 mph limit is in effect during the entire school day if a fence, gate or other physical barrier does not surround a portion of the school grounds. In order to change speed limits to 15 mph adjacent to schools, streets must be contiguous to a school, have no more than two motor vehicle travel lanes and have a posted speed limit of 30 mph or less. Additionally, streets must have an entrance to the school grounds and two conditions from CVC Section 627 (Engineering and Traffic Survey) must be present to justify the lower speed limit:

• residential density threshold must be met • history of collisions at the location • conditions are not readily apparent to the driver • a need to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety

32



The official Vehicle Code language giving the SFMTA the authority to reduce the posted speed limit nears schools is attached at the end of this allocation request form for reference.

Signs are considerably less expensive than speed humps or other physical road changes. Lowering the prima facie speed limit near schools will also require increased enforcement and extensive outreach in order to ensure compliance. The Pedestrian Safety Task Force (PSTF) is a collaborative effort between more than 10 local agencies and the advocate community to address pedestrian safety in response to the Mayor’s Pedestrian Safety Executive Directive. In order to accomplish action items in the Directive, the PSTF is organized into three subcommittees: Data Collection and Modeling, Enforcement and Investigations, and Engineering. The Task Force meets monthly to discuss the progress of the subcommittees and to coordinate other pedestrian safety initiatives. Each of the PSTF subcommittees will play a role in implementing the near term action item to install 15 mph speed limit signage near schools citywide. According to the PSTF Enforcement and Investigations subcommittee work plan, it will accomplish the following:

A targeted enforcement program beginning around at least five schools with 15 mph speed limit signage. a. Site selection informed by severe and fatal injury data and other factors

b. Activities conducted in cooperation with Safe Route to Schools program to the extent feasible

According to the PSTF Data Collection and Modeling subcommittee work plan, it will accomplish the following:

Create and help implement evaluation designs for the near-term engineering and enforcement actions.

As the PSTF subcommittees complete these tasks, the SFMTA will work with the PSTF to develop a schedule, cost estimate and funding plan for implementation. The current schedule for the PSTF is to draft the enforcement and outreach components of the program by December 2011. The SFMTA may seek Prop K funds to support education/outreach and evaluation. Because additional engineering measures may be required where speed limit signage and targeted enforcement is not effective at increasing safety, the SFMTA will continue to move forward with its current and future school-related safety projects, such as Safe Routes to School and traffic calming projects.

Project Scope The scope of this project includes the planning, design, and implementation of 15 mph school zones throughout San Francisco. There are approximately 200 schools (public and private) that meet the criteria established in the CVC. The project phases are as follows:

33



• Planning – Evaluate which street segments qualify for 15 mph signage at each of the 200 schools funded through this allocation request. This includes an engineering study as required under the Vehicle Code and supporting the legislation through internal review, review by other City departments, public hearing, and the SFMTA Board.

• Design – Identify 15 mph sign locations, the numbers of signs, and prepare the work orders for implementation

• Construction – Remove existing speed limit signage, and install new 15 mph signs. All work will be performed by SFMTA staff. Planning and design will be completed by Livable Streets Staff, and installation will be by the SFMTA sign shop. Schedule The SFMTA has already begun the planning phase. 100 Schools (50% of total) will be planned and designed by July 2011 using SFMTA operating funds. Construction on that first batch of schools (“Group 1”) will begin in August of 2011. Group 1 schools were selected to ensure geographic distribution of 9 – 10 schools within each supervisorial district. Planning and design of the second batch of 100 schools (“Group 2”) will begin in July 2011 and be complete by December 31, 2011. All construction will be complete by December 31, 2012. The list and map showing schools by group are attached at the end of this allocation request form. Funding and Prioritization The total project cost is $361,700 to plan, design and construct this project. SFMTA operating funds contribute $40,000 to partially fund planning and design. Prop K funding in the amount of $321,700 is requested to fund the balance. The proposed project is not part of the adopted 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) for Signals and Signs. The SFMTA requests that funds from the existing Prop K allocation for Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) be deobligated from project savings and redirected to fund the subject project. Deobligation materials will be submitted by the May CAC meeting. As mentioned previously in the scope, this project became a priority in December 2010 when Mayor Newsom issued an executive directive to have the 15 mph signs installed at school locations. Also, this project meets the following prioritization criteria in the 5YPP: Community Support, Pedestrian Amenities, Geographic Distribution, Leveraging Prop K Funds, Safety, Mandates, and Political Factors.

34


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


4 2010/11 1 2011/12


N/A N/A1 2011/12 N/A N/A

N/A N/A 3 2011/12Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred) 4 2012/13

Start Date End Date

Quarter Fiscal Year Quarter Fiscal Year1 2011/12 2 2011/12


N/A N/A3 2011/12 N/A N/A




Advertise Construction

Schedule For Group 2 of locations

Planning/Conceptual EngineeringEnvironmental Studies (PA&ED)

Start Construction (e.g., Award Contract)Start Procurement (e.g. rolling stock)


Project Completion (i.e., Open for Use)Start Procurement (e.g. rolling stock)



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



Categorical Exemption



N/A


Schedule For Group 1 of locations


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 2-Schedule :FY 10/11 Page 5 of 24

35


Provide project delivery milestones for each sub-project included in the current request, if appropriate. Describe coordination with other project schedules or external deadlines (e.g., obligation deadlines) that impact the project schedule, if relevant.The SFMTA has already begun the planning phase. 100 Schools (50% of total) will be planned and designed by July 2011 using SFMTA operating funds. Construction on that first batch of schools ("Group 1") will begin in August of 2011.

Planning and design of the second batch of 100 schools ("Group 2") will begin in July 2011 and be complete by December 31, 2011. All construction will be complete by December 31, 2012.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force CoordinationThrough the Engineering, Enforcement, and Data subcommittees established through the Mayor’s Pedestrian Safety Directive, the SFMTA will work with various agencies, including the San Francisco Police Department and Department of Public Health (DPH), to coordinate enforcement and education/ outreach and provide the scope, schedule, budget, and funding plan for those activities by December 31, 2011.


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 2-Schedule :FY 10/11 Page 6 of 24

36


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




Yes/No Total CostYes

Yes

Yes


Total Cost Source of Cost Estimate$41,300

$41,300

$279,100

$361,700 Expected Useful Life: 10 Years



$21,300


Total:

SFMTA staff estimate

SFMTA staff estimate

SFMTA staff estimateR/W Activities/Acquisition

Environmental Studies (PA&ED)Design Engineering (PS&E)R/W Activities/Acquisition




$41,300



$41,300


Enter expected useful life of completed capital project (e.g., use audit number).

$361,700 $321,700




$279,100

$21,300

$279,100

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 3-Cost :FY 10/11 Page 7 of 24

37



Prop K Request SFMTA Operating

PLANNING Labor $ 41,300 21,300$ 20,000$

DESIGN Labor $ 41,300 21,300$ 20,000$

CONSTRUCTION Labor $ 59,100 59,100$ -$

Materials $ 200,000 200,000$ -$

Materials Contingency (10%) $ 20,000 20,000$ -$

Total $ 361,700 321,700$ 40,000$

1. Provide a major line item budget, with subtotals by 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.

Project Summary

Labor

Agency: SFMTA Overhead Rate: 2.21

Position (Title and

Classification) Hours Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

Assistant Engineer/Transit Planner II 200 $89,960 $198,811.60 0.096 $19,117Associate Engineer/Transit Planner III 100 $104,728 $231,448.88 0.048 $11,127Engineer/Transit Planner IV 50 $121,212 $267,878.52 0.024 $6,439Principal Engineer 25 $175,214 $387,222.94 0.012 $4,654 RoundedSUB-TOTAL 375 0.180 $41,337 41,300$

Planning

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 4-Major Line Item Budget :FY 10/11 Page 8 of 24

38



Position (Title and

Classification) Hours Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

Assistant Engineer/Transit Planner II 200 $89,960 $198,811.60 0.096 $19,117Associate Engineer/Transit Planner III 100 $104,728 $231,448.88 0.048 $11,127Engineer/Transit Planner IV 50 $121,212 $267,878.52 0.024 $6,439Principal Engineer 25 $175,214 $387,222.94 0.012 $4,654 RoundedSUB-TOTAL 375 0.180 $41,337 41,300$


Position (Title and

Classification) Hours Hourly Base Salary Hourly Fully Burdened FTE Cost

Assistant Engineer/Transit Planner II 50 $89,960 $198,811.60 0.024 $4,779Associate

Design

Construction

Engineer/Transit Planner III 25 $104,728 $231,448.88 0.012 $2,782Sign Worker 800 $60,632 $133,996.72 0.385 $51,537 RoundedSUB-TOTAL 800 0.385 $59,098 59,100$

Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost

15 MPH Speed Limit Sign Each 1000 $200 200,000 SUB-TOTAL 200,000

Materials

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 4-Major Line Item Budget :FY 10/11 Page 9 of 24

39


FY

Project Name:







2011/12

$321,700


$3,591,245


$0

The 15 MPH Zone Near Schools project is not included in the 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) for Signals and Signs. The Strategic Plan amount is the amount programmed for the Signals and Signs category in FY 2011/12, including $3,270,000 programmed in FY 2011/12 and $321,245 in prior year unallocated funds.

Programmed

$0


$40,000

11.06%

$321,700Fund Source

$361,700

Prop K sales tax$40,000

$321,700

$0

$0$0

Allocated TotalPlanned

The requested allocation would require deobligation of at least $321,700 from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) and a 5YPP amendment to reprogram the funds to the 15 MPH Zones Near Schools project. The Strategic Plan amount does not include the pending deobligation. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

SFMTA Operating


$0

Total:

$361,700

$321,700 $40,000

41.47%

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 10 of 24

40



%


Programmed

$0

Actual Leveraging - Entire Project:E d L i E di Pl T t l f C t k h t

$ Amount

#DIV/0!

$0

$0

41 47%

$0Total:

$361,700

$0

Total

$0$0

$0


$Fund SourceRequired Local Match

$0.00

Fund Source

$0

$0

$0.00

AllocatedPlanned

$0

Expected Leveraging per Expenditure Plan Total from Cost worksheet




Annually

84.00%16.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

$0

$50,700FY 2011/12

$0

$0

Balance

$321,700

41.47%

Cash Flow

$50,700


Total:

FY 2012/13

$321,700

$0$271,000

Fiscal Year

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 11 of 24

41




Project Name:


Prop K Recommended: AllocationAllocationAllocation

Total:

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


Construction


Planning/Conceptual EngineeringAmount

$21,300Design Engineering (PS&E)$21,300

$279,100



$321,700

Multi-phase allocation is recommended given the straightforward nature of the scope (e.g. sign replacement) and short duration of planning and design phases.

EP Line

% Reimbursable

33 84.00%33 16.00% 0.00% 0.00%

0.00%100%



Reimbursement

33 FY 2011/12 $21,30033 FY 2011/12 $21,30033 FY 2011/12 $228,40033 FY 2012/13 $50,700

$321,700


Total: $321,700


FY 2012/13

Total:

$321,700

$271,000FY 2011/12

Fiscal Year

$50,700100%


$0

13%

100%

Balance

7%

$0

$279,100$300,400

Construction84%

6/30/2013

$321,700

Planning/Conceptual EngineeringPhase

Construction

$50,700$321,700$271,000

Maximum Reimbursement Balance

$50,700

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 6-Authority Rec :FY 10/11 Page 12 of 24

42




Project Name:






Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.

Quarterly progress reports shall provide percent complete by project phase (Group 1 v. Group 2) and overall percent complete for the project; a list of locations for which a work order has been issued during the preceding quarter; the total number of locations implemented to date; and update on the development and implementation of the related enforcement and education/outreach strategies, in addition to the requirements described in the Standard Grant Agreement (SGA).

Amount

Group 1: Upon completion of the planning phase (anticipated by 09.30.11), provide the Engineering and

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

By December 31, 2011, provide the methodology for evaluating project effectiveness, e.g. a before/ after study, as developed through the Pedestrian Safety Task Force. See Special Condition 4.

Traffic Survey (i.e. engineering study referenced in project scope). See Special Condition 3.

By December 31, 2011, provide the scope, schedule, budget, and funding plan for enforcement and education/outreach, as developed through the Pedestrian Safety Task Force. See Special Condition 4.

Group 2: Upon completion of the planning phase (anticipated by 12.31.11), provide the Engineering and Traffic Survey (i.e. engineering study referenced in project scope). See Special Condition 4.

Within three months of completion of the construction phase of Group 2 (anticipated by 12.31.12), provide a before/after study evaluating project effectiveness, including recommendations for modifications to enforcement and education/outreach and for additional capital improvements, if any, to improve the effectiveness based on the before/after study. The deadline for this deliverable may be revised depending on the schedule specified in Deliverable 4.

Upon completion of the design phase of Group 2 (anticipated by 12.31.11), provide the results of the "before" portion of the before/after study. The deadline for this deliverable may be revised depending on the schedule specified in Deliverable 4. See Special Condition 4.


43




Project Name:






2.

3.

4

Group 1: SFMTA may not incur expenses for the construction phase until Authority staff releases the funds ($139,550) pending receipt of Engineering and Traffic Survey. See Deliverable 2.

The recommended allocation is contingent upon a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $321,700 in FY 2007/08 funds deobligated from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) to the (new) 15 MPH Zones Near Schools project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

Group 2: SFMTA may not incur expenses for the construction phase until Authority staff releases the funds

The recommended allocation is contingent upon the SFMTA returning to the Authority at least $321,700 in cost savings from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) and deobligating these funds from the signal project. SFMTA estimates a total saving of $3,273,635 to be returned to the Authority and reprogrammed to other eligible signals and signs upgrade projects, including the subject project.

4.

5.

Notes:1.

2.

Supervisorial District(s): citywide 88.94%




The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA-DPT up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year that SFMTA incurs charges. The approved FY 2011/12 overhead multiplier rate for SFMTA-DPT is 2.21.

Group 2: SFMTA may not incur expenses for the construction phase until Authority staff releases the funds ($139,550) pending receipt of Engineering and Traffic Survey, evaluation methodology (for a before/ after study), scope/ schedule/ budget/ funding plan for enforcement and education/ outreach, and "before" portion of the before/ after study. Deadline for the "before" evaluation results may be separated from this condition depending on the schedule specified in Deliverable 4. See Deliverables 3, 4, 5, and 6.


44




Project Name:





Sub-Project # from SGA: Name:


EP Line Fiscal Year


Cumulative % Reimbursable Balance

SUB-PROJECT DETAIL

15 MPH Zones Near Schools - Group 1

Phase

1. Print this page only if the recommendation includes multiple subjects (e.g. 5 bike projects covered by one allocation). Replicate table as needed for additional sub-projects. 2. If deliverables or special conditions apply to a particular sub-project, be sure to note that specifically in the prior section, as well as below as needed for clarity.3. Be sure that total recommended allocation/appropriation, amounts by fiscal year, etc. match prior page.

33 FY 2011/12 $139,550

$139,550



EP Line Fiscal Year


33 FY 2011/12 $21,30033 FY 2011/12 $21,300

$42,600

$182,150

$182,150

43% $182,150

Construction$182,150

13%

43%

43%

43%

13%

$300,400Design Engineering (PS&E)

13% $279,100

Total:


$279,100$279,100

43% $182,150

13% $279,100


15 MPH Zones Near Schools - Group 2 Planning/Design

7%

Total:


45




Project Name:







EP Line Fiscal Year


33 FY 2011/12 $88,85033 FY 2012/13 $50,700

$139,550

ConstructionConstruction

43% $182,150

$182,15043%

Phase

28% $232,850

Cumulative % Reimbursable Balance

43% $182,150

43% $182,150

15 MPH Zones Near Schools - Group 2 Construction

Total:


46


V C Section 22358.4 Decrease of Local Limits Near Schools or Senior Centers

Decrease of Local Limits Near Schools or Senior Centers

22358.4. (a) (1) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour established by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352 is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey.

(2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway. (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits as follows:

(A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.

(B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. (2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply only to highways that meet all of the following conditions: (A) A maximum of two traffic lanes.

(B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the school zone. (3) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply to all lanes of an affected highway, in both directions of travel. (4) When determining the need to lower the prima facie speed limit, the local authority shall take the provisions of Section 627 into consideration.

(5) (A) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 15 miles per hour may be placed at a distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. (C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 25 miles per hour may be placed at any distance between 500 and 1,000 feet away from the school grounds. (D) A local authority shall reimburse the Department of Transportation for all costs incurred by the department under this subdivision. Amended Sec. 23, Ch. 279, Stats. 2005. Effective January 1, 2006.Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 384, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 7-CVC :FY 10/11 Page 17 of 24

47


Attachment B

V C Section 627 Engineering and Traffic SurveyEngineering and Traffic Survey

627. (a) "Engineering and traffic survey," as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities. (b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements. (2) Accident records. (3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. (c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities, in addition to the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the following: (1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district: (A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. (B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. (C) The portion of highway is longer than one-quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B). (2) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Amended Ch. 466, Stats. 1982. Effective January 1, 1983.Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 45, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 7-CVC :FY 10/11 Page 18 of 24

48

Group 1School Name Supervisor District GroupGeorge Peabody 1 1Presidio 1 1George Washington 1 1Lafayette 1 1Frank McCoppin ES & CDC 1 1Argonne 1 1Hebrew Academy of SF 1 1Kittredge 1 1Laurel School 1 1Star of the Sea 1 1Claire Lilienthal (3-8) 2 1Galileo (North) 2 1Galileo (South) 2 1Marina 2 1Claire Lilienthal (K-2) 2 1Katherine Delmar Burke 2 1Hamlin 2 1Convent of the Sacred Heart HS 2 1St Vincent De Paul 2 1Francisco (North) 3 1Garfield ES & CDC 3 1John Yehall Chin 3 1Jean Parker ES & CDC 3 1Chinese Education Center 3 1Gordon J Lau 3 1Cathedral School for Boys 3 1Ecole Notre Dame des Victoires 3 1St Mary's Chinese Day 3 1Francisco (South) 3 1Francis Scott Key / Learning Center High 4 1Lawton Alternative 4 1R L Stevenson 4 1Abraham Lincoln 4 1Independence High 4 1Holy Name 4 1Russian-American International School 4 1Lycee Francais La Perouse 4 1West Portal Lutheran 4 1Creative Arts 5 1Ida B Wells 5 1Aim High Academy 5 1Grattan PK, ES & CDC 5 1Drew School 5 1French-American International School 5 1Hearing and Speech Center of Norcal 5 1Jewish Community High School of the Bay 5 1Chinese American International School 5 1Gateway Charter 5 1Tenderloin Community 6 1Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep 6 1Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep 6 1SF Christian Academy 6 1De Marrilac 6 1

49

Group 1School Name Supervisor District GroupSF Christian Academy 6 1Bessie Carmichael ES & CDC FEC 6 1Civic Center Secondary 6 1SF Friends School 6 1Clarendon Alternative 7 1Alice Fong Yu Alternative 7 1Herbert Hoover 7 1Glen Park 7 1Aptos 7 1Bridgemont 7 1Brandeis-Hillel Day 7 1Commodore Sloat 7 1Dianne Feinstein 7 1Krouzian Zakerian Armenian School 7 1Everett 8 1Mission High 8 1McKinley 8 1Alvarado 8 1James Lick 8 1Fairmount 8 1Mission Dolores 8 1Adda Clevenger Jr Prep & Theater School 8 1Children's Day School 8 1Sanchez 8 1John O'Connell 9 1Cesar Chavez 9 1Leonard Flynn ES & CDC 9 1Junipero Serra ES & CDC 9 1Cornerstone Academy (5-10) 9 1Katherine Michiels School 9 1George Moscone 9 1Bryant ES & CDC 9 1St Anthony Immaculate Conception 9 1Live Oak 10 1Downtown 10 1International Studies Academy 10 1Charles Drew ES & CDC 10 1El Dorado 10 1George Washington Carver 10 1KIPP Bayview Academy 10 1June Jordan 10 1City Arts & Tech 10 1Cleveland 11 1Guadalupe 11 1Hillcrest 11 1Balboa 11 1James Denman 11 1Jose Ortega 11 1Corpus Christi 11 1Cornerstone Academy (K-4) 11 1Leadership Charter 11 1Excelsior PK & SA @ Guadalupe 11 1

50

Group 2School Name Supervisor District GroupSutro 1 2Alamo 1 2St Thomas the Apostle 1 2St Monica 1 2Zion Lutheran 1 2St John of SF Orthodox Academy 1 2Saints Cyril and Methodius High School 1 2Sherman 2 2Roosevelt 2 2Wallenberg 2 2Town School for Boys 2 2SF University (North) 2 2SF Waldorf Grade School 2 2SF University (South) 2 2Stuart Hall for Boys/Convent ES 2 2St Brigid 2 2Stuart Hall High 2 2Presidio Hill 2 2Sterne School 2 2Hillwood Academic Day School 2 2Yick Wo 3 2Spring Valley ES & SA CDC 3 2Redding ES & CDC 3 2Sts Peter and Paul Salesian School 3 2AP Giannini 4 2Sunset 4 2Ulloa 4 2St Ignatius 4 2St Gabriel 4 2William L Cobb ES & CDC 5 2John Muir 5 2Jefferson ES & CDC 5 2Newcomer High School 5 2KIPP SF Bay Academy 5 2SF Day School 5 2New Traditions 5 2Urban School (North) 5 2Urban School (South) 5 2St Anne 5 2Rosa Parks/JBBP West 5 2Woodside International School 5 2Marshall 6 2West Portal 7 2Miraloma 7 2Lakeshore Alternative 7 2Sunnyside 7 2Lowell 7 2St Brendan 7 2St Stephen 7 2Mercy 7 2Riordan 7 2St Thomas More 7 2West Portal Lutheran 7 2

51

Group 2School Name Supervisor District GroupSt Finn Barr 7 2St Cecilia 7 2Lycee Francais La Perouse 7 2Maria Montessori 7 2Voice of Pentecost Academy 7 2Scandinavian School 7 2SF Waldorf High School 7 2Holy Trinity Orthodox School 7 2Harvey Milk 8 2Rooftop (5-8) 8 2Rooftop (K-4) 8 2Edison Charter 8 2School of the Arts (McAteer Campus) 8 2Mission Education Center 8 2St Philip 8 2Immaculate Conception Academy 8 2St James 8 2St Paul 8 2St John's School 8 2Synergy 9 2Horace Mann 9 2Buena Vista Alternative 9 2Paul Revere (North) 9 2Paul Revere (South) 9 2St Peter 9 2St Charles Borremeo 9 2Sand Paths Academy 9 2Martin Luther King 10 2ER Taylor 10 2St Elizabeth 10 2S.R. Martin College Preparatory 10 2Daniel Webster ES & CDC 10 2Starr King 10 2Thurgood Marshall 10 2Willie L. Brown Jr. College Prep Academy 10 2Visitacion Valley Middle 10 2Malcolm X 10 2Visitacion Valley Elementary 10 2SF School 10 2Our Lady of the Visitacion 10 2Meadows-Livingstone School 10 2Philip & Sala Burton High School 10 2Metropolitan Arts & Tech 10 2Discovery Center 11 2Epiphany 11 2SF Community 11 2Monroe 11 2Longfellow 11 2Sheridan 11 2Lick-Wilmerding 11 2SF Adventist 11 2SF Christian Elementary 11 2Stratford School 11 2

52


Map of Schools Eligible for 15 mph SignsBlue: Group 1; Pink: Group 2

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 7-Map :FY 10/11 Page 23 of 24

53



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

Transportation Engineer

(415) 701-4789

[email protected]


Laura Stonehill


(415) 701-4343


$321,700

1 South Van Ness, 7th FL, San Francisco, CA 94103

Joel C. Goldberg

Manager of Grants Procurement

(415) 701-4499

(415) 701-4734

[email protected]


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT 15 MPH ARF, 8-Signatures :FY 10/11 Page 24 of 24

54

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

SFM

TARa

ised

Pave

men

t Mar

kers

PRO

C,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$50,

000

$50,

000

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti an

d U

pgra

de

Prog

ram

PRO

C,

CON

Allo

cate

d$2

50,0

00$2

50,0

00SF

MTA

Traf

fic S

ign

Gra

ffiti

Pro

gram

CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

20,0

00$3

20,0

00SF

MTA

Traf

fic S

ign

Gra

ffiti

Pro

gram

CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

20,0

00$3

20,0

00

SFM

TA15

MPH

Zon

e N

ear S

choo

ls 2

PLA

N,

PS&

E,

CON

Pend

ing

$321

,700

$321

,700

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raff

iti P

rogr

am

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Sign

als

and

Sig

ns

(EP

33)

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Age

ncy

Proj

ect N

ame

Phas

eSt

atus

Fisc

al Y

ear

Pave

men

t Mar

king

s

Tota

l

Sign

Upg

rade

s

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti Pr

ogra

m

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

SFM

TAG

olde

n G

ate

Sign

al U

pgra

de

(Div

isade

ro to

Fra

nklin

)PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$375

,000

$375

,000

SFM

TAG

olde

n G

ate

Sign

al U

pgra

de

(Div

isade

ro to

Fra

nklin

)CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

,800

,000

$1,8

00,0

00

SFM

TAH

ighw

ay 1

Sig

nal U

pgra

des (

Lake

St.

to Ju

nipe

ro S

erra

) Pha

se 3

PS

&E

, CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

,750

,000

$2,7

50,0

00

SFM

TA

Ligh

t Rail

Cor

ridor

Sig

nal a

nd

Pave

men

tM

arki

ng Im

prov

emen

ts 1

PS&

E,

CON

, PR

OC

Allo

cate

d$9

8,75

5$9

8,75

5

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

) 1TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$0

$0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

) 1TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

,245

$1,2

45

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0SF

MTA

Sign

al M

odifi

catio

n Co

ntra

ct 3

3PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$133

,000

$133

,000

SFM

TASi

gnal

Mod

ifica

tion

Cont

ract

33

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$317

,000

$317

,000

SFM

TASi

gnal

Mod

ifica

tion

Cont

ract

33

CON

Prog

ram

med

$2,0

00,0

00$2

,000

,000

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

nal C

ontro

ller H

ardw

are

Upg

rade

sCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$4

75,0

00$4

75,0

00

Traf

fic S

igna

l Upg

rade

s

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

3 T

ab: E

P 33

5YP

P 05

.19.

11Pa

ge 1

of 2

55

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Sign

als

and

Sig

ns

(EP

33)

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Age

ncy

Proj

ect N

ame

Phas

eSt

atus

Fisc

al Y

ear

Tota

l

SFM

TAM

issio

n-G

enev

a Tr

ansit

and

Pe

dest

rain

Impr

ovem

ents

3CO

NPe

ndin

g$6

0,47

0$6

0,47

0

$383

,000

$7

37,0

00

$3,6

52,1

70

$370

,000

$4

,920

,000

$1

0,06

2,17

0

$250

,000

$4

15,7

55

$382

,170

$0

$0

$1

,047

,925

$1

33,0

00

$321

,245

$3

,270

,000

$3

70,0

00

$4,9

20,0

00

$9,0

14,2

45

$750

,000

$3

70,0

00

$3,2

70,0

00

$370

,000

$4

,920

,000

$9

,680

,000

$3

82,1

70

$382

,170

$7

49,1

70

$382

,170

$0

$0

$0

$0

*Th

e20

09St

rate

gic

Plan

was

adop

ted

onJu

ly28

2009

thro

ugh

Res

1007

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

Tot

al U

nal

loca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

200

9 St

rate

gic

Pla

n*

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

emai

nin

g P

rogr

amm

ing

Cap

acit

yD

eob

ligat

ed f

rom

pri

or 5

YP

P c

ycle

s**

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

ado

pted

on

July

28,

200

9 th

roug

h Re

s. 10

-07.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

1 $5

0,00

0 in

FY

200

9/10

Join

t Opp

ortu

nity

fund

s and

$48

,755

in F

Y 2

010/

11 Jo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty fu

nds w

ere

redi

rect

ed to

FY

201

0/11

for t

he L

ight

Rail

Cor

ridor

Sig

nal a

nd P

avem

ent M

arki

ng

Impr

ovem

ents

pro

ject.

Prog

ram

med

2 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

the

15 M

PH Z

one

Nea

r Sch

ools

proj

ect a

nd re

prog

ram

$32

1,70

0 Fi

scal

Yea

r 200

7/08

Pro

p K

fund

s deo

blig

ated

from

Par

k Pr

esid

io 1

9th

Ave

Sig

nal U

pgra

des,

Phas

e II

(Res

. 08

-60,

Pro

ject 1

33.9

0701

3) (R

es. X

X-X

X, M

O.D

A.Y

EA

R). T

he p

endi

ng d

eobl

igat

ion

is in

clude

d in

the

"Deo

blig

ated

from

prio

r 5Y

PP c

ycles

."3 5

YPP

am

endm

ent t

o ad

d th

e M

issio

n-G

enev

a Tr

ansit

and

Ped

estra

in Im

prov

emen

ts p

rojec

t and

repr

ogra

m $

60,4

70 F

iscal

Yea

r 200

7/08

Pro

p K

fund

s deo

blig

ated

from

Par

k Pr

esid

io 1

9th

Ave

Sig

nal

Upg

rade

s, Ph

ase

II (R

es. 0

8-60

, Pro

ject 1

33.9

0701

3) (R

es. X

X-X

X, M

O.D

A.Y

EA

R). T

he p

endi

ng d

eobl

igat

ion

is in

clude

d in

the

"Deo

blig

ated

from

prio

r 5Y

PP c

ycles

."

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

** "D

eobl

igat

ed fr

om p

rior 5

YPP

cyc

les" i

nclu

des d

eobl

igat

ions

from

allo

catio

ns ap

prov

ed in

fisc

al ye

ars p

rior t

o th

e cu

rren

t 5Y

PP p

erio

d an

d re

dire

cted

to al

loca

tions

in th

e cu

rren

t 5Y

PP p

erio

d. T

his

amou

nt d

oes n

ot in

clude

deo

blig

atio

ns th

at w

ere

inclu

ded

in th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

.

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

3 T

ab: E

P 33

5YP

P 05

.19.

11Pa

ge 2

of 2

56



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:



a. Traffic Calming

$67,000

Geary Boulevard and Steiner Street Crosswalk Reopening

SCOPE



5

Sufficient scope detail should be provided to allow Authority staff to evaluate the reasonablenes of the proposed budget and schedule. If there are prior allocations for the same project, provide an update on progress. 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.



iv. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements



P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 1-Scope Page 1 of 13

57


Project Scope

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) requests Proposition K (Prop K) funding in the amount of $67,000 to improve the intersection of Geary Boulevard and Steiner Street by re-opening a closed crosswalk and enhancing pedestrian safety and access. This project will open the pedestrian crossing on the western leg of the intersection. This intersection leg has four eastbound and four westbound travel lanes where new pedestrian countdown signals, a yellow continental crosswalk, accessible curb ramps, and bulb outs will be installed.

The reopened crosswalk will create an at-grade crossing to supplement the existing pedestrian overcrossing. The existing traffic medians will be modified to accommodate adequate queuing space for pedestrians. Additionally, the project will include two pedestrian countdown signal heads, installing pedestrian lighting on the underside of the existing pedestrian bridge, and pedestrian bulb outs with curb ramps meeting ADA Guidelines on the southwest and northwest corners of the intersection. A yellow staggered continental crosswalk will be installed at this location due to the close proximity of Gateway High School, located on Scott Street south of Geary Boulevard.

The crosswalk opening is an important link between Hamilton Recreation Center Playground and Pool and Raymond Kimbell Playground. The project is coordinated with major capital improvements that recently occurred at these two parks. In 2010, San Francisco Recreation and Park Department completed the Hamilton Recreation Center pool facility and playground equipment improvements and the Kimbell Park turf field and batting cage improvements. These two Recreation and Park sites generate connecting pedestrian trips through the project intersection. The project will also provide an improved connection between the residential neighborhoods on the south side of Geary Boulevard with the commercial district to the north.

In addition to access improvements between the two parks, the re-opened crosswalk will enhance pedestrian safety. There is an existing pedestrian overcrossing on the west side of Steiner Street over Geary Boulevard, however many pedestrians do not use this facility and cross Geary Boulevard at the undesignated at-grade location.

Schedule

Due to the recent improvements to public facilities and the observed existing occurrences of unsanctioned crossings at this intersection, the SFMTA and its City partners have placed a high priority on re-opening this closed crosswalk. The Department of Public Works (DPW) and SFMTA forces will complete the final design and construction of the project. Final design of the project will be complete by June 2011. Construction will begin in summer 2011, and be completed by winter 2011. Project closeout is scheduled for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011/12 to allow for charges to be processed and to account for any unforeseen delays, including weather. The conceptual design of the project is complete and environmental review and legislation processes are underway.

Implementation

SFMTA staff will complete the design and implementation of traffic signal modifications, signage improvements, and street striping changes. The DPW will complete curb and median changes through a work order. PUC will perform the associated hydraulics work (including new catchbasins, culverts and manholes at both corners where bulbouts will be

58


added). This project should meet environmental requirements with a categorical exemption by June 2011.

Funding

The Department of Recreation and Parks (Rec and Park) is contributing $60,345 from the Open Space Fund for this project. DPW is contributing to the project, providing $50,000 in Prop 42 funding from the Steiner Street repaving effort to construct curb ramps and through in-kind design and construction management services. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will provide $70,000 for the hydraulic work. The remainder of the project ($67,000) will come from this Prop K allocation.

The Prop K Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Citywide Pedestrian Safety and Circulation Improvements allocation funded the planning, environmental, and legislative processes for this project. This prior allocation studied the feasibility of re-opening crosswalks throughout the city and established a prioritized list of improvement locations. The Geary Boulevard and Steiner Street intersection was not among the highest priority locations according to the prioritization methodology; therefore it is not appropriate to fund this project using the Re-Opening Closed Crosswalks line item for Fiscal Year 2010-11. However, the opportunity to coordinate with Rec and Park and DPW and to open a closed crosswalk has led the City to pursue this project using other Prop K funds.

Specifically, the $67,000 is requested from EP 38 Traffic Calming from the line item titled “TBD -Joint Opportunity” project because this is a joint traffic safety effort between four City departments – the SFMTA, DPW, Rec and Park, and the PUC.

Prioritization

This intersection was chosen for immediate implementation based on an engineering study which established the need and feasibility of the project, and the coordination opportunity that resulted from the improvements to Kimbell Park and Hamilton Pool.

59


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


4 2010/11 4 2010/11


1 2011/12 N/A N/A

N/A N/A 2 2011/12Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred) 3 2011/12 4 2011/12













Underway 06/30/11


Design is 98% is complete and environmental clearance is expected by the end of June 2011. There is no need to advertise for a construction contract because all work will be done by City forces.

SFMTA will coordinate with the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) with respect to the Steiner Street repaving project (McAllister St. to Geary Blvd from July 1-November, 2011.) to ensure there is no conflict with schedules or scope with each respective project. The proposed project is consistent with the Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, which is being analyzed by the Authority, in close coordination with the SFMTA.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 2-Schedule Page 2 of 13

60


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




Yes/No Total Cost

Yes



11,235$

236,110$


(curb ramps/bulbs)

Total:

Engineer's estimate based on prior projects

Operations

Actual costs based on 98% design completeDesign Engineering (PS&E)









Operations






$236,110 67,000$

$236,110 $67,000


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 3-Cost Page 3 of 13

61



11,235$

41,959$ 25,300$

137,500$ 14,980$

219,739$

16,371$

236,110$ 247,345$

60,345$

38,765$ 70,000$ 67,000$ 236,110


Summary

DPW Labor

SFMTA Labor (Signals & Striping)Materials (Signals and Striping)

Construction (bulbouts)

Contingency (10% of DPW Labor and Construction)

Project Total

Prop KTotal Construction Phase Funding

DPW In Kind Public Utility Commission

DPW Construction SupportConstruction Subtotal

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

Funding Sources Open Space Fund Contribution

Construction Phase Total

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F Page 4 of 13

62


Position Unburdened Salary Overhead Multiplier

Burdened Salary FTE Ratio Hours Cost

Associate Engineer/Transit Planner III 107,770$ 2.21 238,172$ 0.029 60 6,870$ Engineer/Transit Planner IV 124,774$ 2.21 275,751$ 0.011 22 2,917$ Principal Engineer 180,336$ 2.21 398,543$ 0.004 8 1,533$ Electrician 91,338$ 2.21 201,857$ 0.077 160 15,527$ Electrician Supervisor 114,816$ 2.21 253,743$ 0.019 40 4,880$ Sign Worker 62,426$ 2.21 137,961$ 0.013 26 1,725$ Traffic Street & Sign Supervisor 89,596$ 2.21 198,007$ 0.010 20 1,904$ Painter 74,724$ 2.21 165,140$ 0.028 58 4,605$ Painter Supervisor 94,068$ 2.21 207,890$ 0.010 20 1,999$

Total 0.199 414 41,959$

Item Item Description Total Qty. Unit Unit Price Extension

1

(3S12") 3 Sections, 12-inch Vehicle Signal Face with Type 1 LED Red, Yellow, and Green

1 Each $1,000 $ 1,000

2

(PV3S12") Programmed Visibility, 3 Sections, 12-inch Vehicle Signal Face LED Red, Yellow, and Green

1 Each $2,000 $ 2,000

3(1S-COUNT) One Section LED Count Pedestrian Signal

4 Each $800 $ 3,200

4

(SP-1-SF) One Way Side Mounted Pedestrian Signal Mounting with 12-inch Nipples, San Francisco Standard

4 Each $400 $ 1,600

5 70 Watt HPS or LED light 3 Each $2,300 $ 6,900 6 Pull Box Type III 2 Each $600 $ 1,200

7 All Wiring & Miscellaneous Electrical Work - LS $5,000 $ 5,000

8 Restriping 1 3,600$ LS 3,600$ 9 Signage 1 800$ LS 800$

Total 25,300$

SFMTA (DPT) Labor (Traffic Signal and Striping Improvements)

SFMTA Materials (Traffic Signal and Striping Improvements)


63




Associate Engineer 107,770$ 2.47 266,192$ 0.029 60 7,679$ Engineer 124,774$ 2.47 308,192$ 0.012 24 3,556$

Total 0.040 84 11,235$



Associate Engineer 107,770$ 2.47 266,192$ 0.038 80 10,238$ Engineer 124,774$ 2.47 308,192$ 0.015 32 4,741$

Total 0.054 112 14,980$

Item Item Description Unit Unit Price Est. Quantity Extension

4 Curb Ramps EA 5,000$ 4 20,000$ Subtotal 20,000$

5 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk for Bulbouts LS 20,000$ 1 20,000$

6 Install Catchbasin & Culvert EA 20,000$ 3 60,000$

8 Relocate Low-Pressure Fire Hydrant EA 25,000$ 1 25,000$

9 Replace Survey Monument EA 2,500$ 1 2,500$ Subtotal 107,500$

10 Shorten 3 Islands LS 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Subtotal 10,000$

Total 137,500$

Median Work

DPW Labor (Design of curb work)

DPW CONSTRUCTION (Construction & Labor)

Bulbout Work

Curb Ramp Work

NON-PROP K FUNDED PROJECT SCOPE

DPW Labor (Construction Support for curb and hydraulics work)


64


FY

Project Name:






Programmed67,000$

$67,000


2011/12



$236,110

$0$169,110

50.70%

$0

60,345$ 70,000$

Prop K sales tax

Public Utilities CommissionOpen Space FundDPW (Prop 42 funds)

$67,000


$300,000


The 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) amount is the entire amount of Prop K funds available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2011/12 for Joint Opportunities in the 2009 5YPP, which includes $200,000 in unallocated Fiscal Years 2009/10 and 2010/11 funds. The Strategic Plan amount is the Fiscal Year 2011/12 amount for the entire Traffic Calming category, including $2,302,000 in Fiscal Year 2011/12 funds and $94,880 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2009/10 funds and $2,031,200 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2010/11 funds.

Fund Source

$0$0

$4,428,080

$67,000$38,76538,765$ $60,345$70,000

71.62%

$0$0

$236,110Total:

$0


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 5-Funding Page 7 of 13

65



%


Programmed67,000$

$67,000





Annually

100.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Cash Flow

$ Amount


$0

$67,000

50.70%


$0

72.91%

$67,000

$0$67,000 $0

Balance

$70,000

50,000$

$0

$50,000

$0

70,000$

$67,000Total

$60,34560,345$

$0.00

AllocatedPlanned

$$0.00

$0

$247,345

$180,345

$0

$247,345

$0

$0

$0$0

Fund Source

Prop K sales taxFund Source


Open Space FundDPW (Prop 42 funds)

Public Utilities Commission

FY 2011/12

Total:

Total:

Fiscal Year

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 5-Funding Page 8 of 13

66




Project Name:



Total:


Line%

Reimbursable

38 100.00%0.00%

0.00% 0.00%

0.00%100%



Reimbursement

38 FY 2011/12 $67,000

$67,000


$0$0

100%

Balance

100%


$0$0

Construction



Amount$67,000

12/31/2012

Balance

$67,000

$67,000

100%

$67,000

ConstructionPhase

Total: $67,000

100%

100% $0

$67,000


Total:


$67,000

$67,000 $0FY 2011/12


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 6-Authority Rec Page 9 of 13

67




Project Name:

Implementing Agency: SFMTA - Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT)




Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.

3.


2.

Notes:1.

2.




SFMTA may not incur expenses for the construction phase until Authority staff releases the funds ($67,000) pending receipt of evidence of completion of 100% design - see Deliverable #1.

Upon project completion (anticipated by the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011/2012), provide evidence of completion of 100% design (e.g. copy of certifications page) - see Special Condition #1.

Consistent with Prop K policies, the project sponsor shall expend non-Prop K funds first to the extent possible. Unless a specific exception is pre-approved by the Authority, Prop K funds will not be reimbursed at a rate greater than their proportional share of the approved funding plan (i.e., 28.4%).

The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA-(DPT or MUNI) up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year that SFMTA incurs charges. The approved FY 2010/11 overhead multiplier rates for SFMTA-DPT is 2.21 and SFMTA-MUNI is 3.11.


Amount

Quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete for the overall project scope in addition to the requirements described in the Standard Grant Agreement.

Upon project completion, provide 2-3 digital photos of completed project.

Allocation request contains photos of typical existing conditions

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 6-Authority Rec Page 10 of 13

68


MAPS AND DRAWINGS

Geary and Steiner existing conditions

Geary and Steiner existing conditions

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 7-Maps.etc Page 11 of 13

69


Conceptual drawing showing new crosswalk and bulb outs

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 7-Maps.etc Page 12 of 13

70



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

701-4789

[email protected]


Laura Stonehill



$67,000

1 South Van Ness Ave, 7th floor San Francisco, CA 94103

Joel C. Goldberg

Grants Procurement Manager

(415) 701-4499

(415) 701-4734

[email protected]


Transportation Engineer


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Geary@Steiner Crosswalk Reopening-ARF F, 8-Signatures Page 13 of 13

71


72



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:



b. Bicycle Circulation/Safety

$165,000




Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements

SCOPE



5

iv. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements


Scope of work begins on next page.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 1-Scope :FY 10/11 Page 1 of 17

73


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements Scope.doc Page 2 of 17

The SFMTA requests $165,000 in Proposition K (Prop K) funding for the planning and design of bikeway improvements to Fell and/or Oak Streets between Scott and Baker Streets. The Prop K allocation will fund a community-driven planning and conceptual design process, detailed design, environmental review, and legislation.

Background

Bikeway improvements along Fell and Oak streets would enhance the connection for bicyclists between Baker and Scott streets along the “Wiggle” (a popular zig-zag bicycle route that provides a relatively flat connection between the Panhandle and Market Street). A one-way westbound bicycle lane exists on Fell Street between Scott and Baker streets connecting to the Panhandle multiuse pathway. However, in the eastbound direction, there are no dedicated bicycle facilities for bicyclists exiting the Panhandle. Other routes involve uphill or circuitous travel, which makes Oak Street the most popular eastbound route. SFMTA staff has identified multiple conceptual design options to improve bicycle conditions in this area, including adding an eastbound bicycle facility to either Fell or Oak streets.

Potential design options that will be reviewed with the community include:

Removing travel lanes from Fell and Oak Streets and creating one-way bikeways adjacent to the curb on each street with parking providing a buffer between the bikeways and moving traffic;

Removing on-street parking from Fell and Oak Streets and creating one-way bikeways adjacent to the curb on each street;

Creating convertible lanes on Fell and Oak Streets that would allow parking during off-peak hours and be converted to travel lanes during peak hours, with one-way bikeways adjacent to the curb on each street (this design would be similar to peak period tow-away lanes found throughout the city, except that the tow-away lane would be located adjacent to a separated bikeway rather than directly adjacent to the curb); and,

Creating a two-way bikeway on either Fell or Oak Streets by removing either a travel lane or parking.

Project Scope

The planning and conceptual design process will include development of drawings of existing conditions and renderings of design options. This phase will require field work to collect existing conditions such as traffic volumes, bicycle volumes, loading needs and parking availability. Surveys will also be conducted to gauge perceived safety based on existing conditions. Collection of existing conditions data will also be used to inform the evaluation phase of the project. The SFMTA will also solicit advanced feedback from the advocate community, neighborhood groups, local businesses and the general public. That advanced feedback will be used to develop a set of conceptual designs that will be the basis for beginning a public dialogue.

The community planning process will include 2-3 public workshops in which community members will review the conceptual design options and weigh the potential benefits and trade-offs of each. Targeted meetings with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, local businesses, and neighborhood groups will also be held. In order to solicit feedback from

74



street users throughout San Francisco, signage will be posted in the project area directing the public to information about the project and the public workshops. Outreach will also be coordinated through the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Community feedback and engineering judgment will be used to develop a preferred design. At the end of the planning process, cross-section drawings and a written description of a preferred bikeway design (30% level of detail compared to detailed final design) will be submitted to the SFCTA as a deliverable.

The environmental review process will involve consideration of potential environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Depending on the design option selected, the environmental review timeline for this project could vary from 3 months for a categorical exemption to 12 or more months for a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) to the Bicycle Plan EIR. The traffic, parking and loading impact analyses conducted as part of the environmental review process will help inform the final design.

Once the project receives environmental clearance, the SFMTA will complete detailed design. Detailed design will include striping changes, and may include parking regulations, turn restrictions, signage, and traffic signal changes. After detailed design is complete, any necessary legislation will be reviewed through the Transportation Advisory Staff Committee (TASC), a SFMTA public hearing, and review by the SFMTA Board of Directors.

After construction, an evaluation including bicycle counts, traffic counts, behavioral observations, and perceived safety surveys will be performed to gauge the effect of the project on the operation and use of these streets. Because the bikeway design implemented may differ from typical bicycle lane design in San Francisco, outreach and education to bicyclists and residents and businesses along these streets may be implemented to help inform users about the safe use of the facility.

All work will be performed by SFMTA staff, except environmental review, which will include may include work by the Planning Department’s Major Environmental Analysis group.

Schedule

The SFMTA will begin drafting conceptual design options in August 2011. Those conceptual designs, along with the potential benefits and tradeoffs of each will be discussed at a series of community workshops between October 2011 and February 2012.

The design option that is chosen as a result of the community planning process will undergo environmental review beginning in March 2012. Depending on the design option chosen, environmental review may take up to one year to complete. By April 2013, informed by the environmental review process, the SFMTA will begin detailed design of the project. By May 2013, the SFMTA will begin the legislation process for the project.. By July 2013, following approval by the SFMTA Board of Directors, the project can move into the construction phase.

Assuming that construction funding can be secured, construction is estimated take approximately two months, and can begin as soon as legislation is complete. Following construction, the SFMTA will conduct education and outreach to as needed, along with an evaluation of the project.

75



Task Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date

Planning (conceptual design and public feedback) August 2011 February 2012

Environmental Review and Technical Analysis March 2012 March 2013

Detailed Design April 2013 July 2013

Legislation Process May 2013 July 2013

Construction August 2013 September 2013

Education, Outreach and Evaluation September 2013 November 2013

Construction Cost

Preliminary construction cost estimates range from $184,000 to $325,000, depending on the details of the design option chosen. The construction cost will vary based on numerous factors, such as whether parking or travel lanes are removed, what type of buffer is provided between the bikeway(s) and parking or travel lanes, whether one-way bikeways are added to each street or a two-way bikeway is added to one street, whether traffic signal modifications are needed to accommodate a two-way bikeway, the type of treatments provided at intersections and the type of colored material added to the bikeway(s), if any. Construction funding will be sought, likely from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air County Program Manager Fund, once design details are developed.

Below is a summary of potential construction costs. A refined construction cost estimate will be developed once a preferred design has been selected. The cost estimate ranges below assume that a one-way bikeway is added along Oak Street and that the existing one-way bikeway on Fell Street is widened and enhanced. The cost estimate range for striping removal and new striping reflects differing amounts of striping work required depending on how many travel lanes are shifted to accommodate the bikeway improvements. The cost estimate range for green intersection treatments reflects a range given the City’s relative lack of experience with similar treatments. The cost estimate range for green bikeway treatments reflects a range of potential material costs. The cost estimate range for bikeway dividers includes a low-cost estimate for safe-hit posts and a high cost estimate for planters.

Item Low Estimate High Estimate

Striping removal $19,000 $31,000

New striping $22,000 $34,000

Green intersection treatments $72,000 $86,000

Green bikeway treatments $60,000 $84,000

Bikeway dividers $11,000 $90,000

Total $184,000 $325,000

76



Prioritization/ 5YPP Amendment

This project was not explicitly included in the Prop K EP 39 5 Year Prioritization Plan (5YPP) because that plan focused on near-term projects listed in the 2009 San Francisco Bicycle Plan. However, this project follows the spirit of the 5YPP by prioritizing projects that are in the Bicycle Plan, which underwent an extensive community planning process. Adding a bicycle facility to Oak Street between Baker and Scott streets was included as a long-term project in the Bicycle Plan. Enhancing existing bikeways using innovative treatments, including enhancing streets such as Fell Street, is included as Bicycle Plan Action Item 1.10.

The Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements project is not programmed for funding in the existing Prop K 5YPP for Expenditure Plan 39 for Bicycle Circulation and Safety. SFMTA requests a 5YPP amendment to accommodate the funding for this project by reprogramming a total of $88,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 10/11 and $77,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 11/12 funds from the Pilot Installations of Innovative Treatments project to the Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements project.

77


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


1 2011/12 2 2013/143 2011/12 3 2012/13


N/A N/A1 2013/14 N/A N/A











Categorical Exemption or EIR


PROJECT DELIVERY MILESTONESEnter 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.

See schedule by phase included in scope of work.

Planning/Conceptual Engineering includes project education, outreach, and evaluation through life of project.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 2-Schedule :FY 10/11 Page 6 of 17

78


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




Yes/No Total CostYesYesYes


Total Cost Source of Cost Estimate$96,500$36,000$32,500

$320,000


Total:

SFMTA Staff based on prior work (high-end estimate)

SFMTA Staff based on prior workSFMTA Staff based on prior workSFMTA Staff based on prior workDesign Engineering (PS&E)





$36,000$32,500




$96,500



$32,500



$165,000 $165,000




$36,000$96,500

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 3-Cost :FY 10/11 Page 7 of 17

79



Planning (Conceptual Design and Meetings) $ 72,200 Env Review $ 31,300 Design $ 14,300 Approvals* $ 13,900 *Approvals include SFMTA Board legislation. Evaluation $ 12,000 Contingency (15%) $ 21,555

Total Cost $ 165,255 Prop K Request 165,000$

TASKSubtask

Unburdened Salary

Overhead Multiplier

Burdened Salary FTE Ratio Hours Total

5362 $32.28 2.21 $71.34 0.019 40 $2,853.555203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.006 12 $1,146.995207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.002 4 $445.095211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.001 2 $298.175212 $78.25 2.21 $172.93 0.000 1 $172.93

5362 $32.28 2.21 $71.34 0.038 80 $5,707.105203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.019 40 $3,823.305207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.008 16 $1,780.385211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.004 8 $1,192.69

5382 $25.36 2.21 $56.05 0.029 60 $3,362.745203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.019 40 $3,823.305207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.004 8 $890.195289 $45.66 2.21 $100.91 0.010 20 $2,018.175211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.004 8 $1,192.699179 $65.00 2.21 $143.65 0.004 8 $1,149.20

Concpetual Signal Design5207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.010 20 $2,225.475211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.004 8 $1,192.69

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.008 16 $1,529.325382 $25.36 2.21 $56.05 0.010 20 $1,120.91

0.1976 411 $35,924.90

Project Summary

PLANNING - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN


CAD Drawings for Existing Striping

CAD Drawings for Proposed Striping (3 options)

Illustrations of concept designs

Field Work

CONCEPT DESIGN SUBTOTAL

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 4-Major Line Item Budget :FY 10/11 Page 8 of 17

80


5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.019 40 $3,823.305207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.019 40 $4,450.945211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.010 20 $2,981.735212 $78.25 2.21 $172.93 0.006 12 $2,075.195289 $45.66 2.21 $100.91 0.019 40 $4,036.345290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.010 20 $2,394.76

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.019 40 $3,823.305207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.010 20 $2,225.475288 $38.50 2.21 $85.09 0.019 40 $3,403.405290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.010 20 $2,394.765211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.008 16 $2,385.399179 $65.00 2.21 $143.65 0.008 16 $2,298.40

0.1558 324 $36,292.97

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.038 80 $7,646.605207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.012 24 $2,670.565211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.008 16 $2,385.399179 $65.00 2.21 $143.65 0.008 16 $2,298.40

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.010 20 $1,911.655207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.004 8 $890.195211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.002 4 $596.35

5289 $45.66 2.21 $100.91 0.038 80 $8,072.695290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.019 40 $4,789.51

0.1385 288 $31,261.33

5362 $32.28 2.21 $71.34 0.019 40 $2,853.555203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.010 20 $1,911.655207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.005 10 $1,112.745211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.002 4 $596.355212 $78.25 2.21 $172.93 0.002 4 $691.73

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.010 20 $1,911.655207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.006 12 $1,335.285211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.004 8 $1,192.69

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.008 16 $1,529.325382 $25.36 2.21 $56.05 0.010 20 $1,120.91

0.074 154 $14,255.87

PLANNING - MEETINGSTargeted meetings with SFBC and Businesses

Public Workshops

Parking/Loading Impact Analysis

Environmental Review

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

MEETINGS AND MEETING PREP SUBTOTAL

ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUBTOTAL

Traffic Impact Analysis

Field Work

DESIGNFinal CAD Drawings for Proposed Striping

Final Signal Design

DETAILED DESIGN SUBTOTAL


81


5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.012 24 $2,293.985207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.006 12 $1,335.285211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.002 4 $596.355212 $78.25 2.21 $172.93 0.002 4 $691.739179 $65.00 2.21 $143.65 0.002 4 $574.60

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.010 20 $1,911.655207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.006 12 $1,335.285211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.004 8 $1,192.695212 $78.25 2.21 $172.93 0.004 8 $1,383.465290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.006 12 $1,436.859179 $65.00 2.21 $143.65 0.004 8 $1,149.20

0.0558 116 $13,901.08

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.008 16 $1,529.325211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.002 4 $596.355289 $45.66 2.21 $100.91 0.008 16 $1,614.545290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.006 12 $1,436.85

5203 $43.25 2.21 $95.58 0.010 20 $1,911.655207 $50.35 2.21 $111.27 0.004 8 $890.195211 $67.46 2.21 $149.09 0.002 4 $596.355289 $45.66 2.21 $100.91 0.010 20 $2,018.175290 $54.18 2.21 $119.74 0.006 12 $1,436.85

0.054 112 $12,030.27

0.622 1293 $143,666.42$21,549.96

$165,216.38

Classification Unburdened Salary Title

Item Low Estimate

HighEstimate 5203 $43.25 Assis Engineer

Striping removal $19,000 $31,000 5207 $50.35 Assoc Engineer

New striping $22,000 $34,000 5211 $67.46 Sr EngineerGreen intersection treatments $72,000 $86,000 5212 $78.25 Principal EngineerGreen bikeway treatments $60,000 $84,000 5288 $38.50 Transit Planner IIBikeway dividers $11,000 $90,000 5289 $45.66 Transit Planner III

Total $184,000 $325,000 5290 $54.18 Transit Planner IV5362 $32.28 Engineer Assis5382 $25.36 Intern9179 $65.00 Manager V

PRELIMINARY PLANNING-LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

EVALUATION AND EDUCATIONEducation and Outreach

APPROVAL SUBTOTAL

APPROVALSTASC

SFMTA BOARD

GRAND TOTAL

Before/After Evaluation

EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND EVALUATION SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (15%)


82


FY

Project Name:






Programmed

$0


2011/12

$165,000

$165,000


$165,000

0.00%

$0

Fund Source

$1,849,275

$165,000


Prop K sales tax


$0$0


$0

$165,000

$0


Total:

$165,00027.84%

This project is not included in the 5YPP for Bicycle Circulation and Safety. To fund the project, SFMTA has proposed a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $88,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 10/11 and $77,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 11/12 funds from the Pilot Installations of Innovative Treatments project to the Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details. The Strategic Plan amount is the FY 2011/12 amount for the entire Bicycle Circulation and Safety category, including $1.286 million Fiscal Year 2011/12 funds and $103,675 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2009/10 funds and $459,600 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2010/11 funds.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 11 of 17

83



%


Programmed

$0





Annually

61.00%39.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

$0$0

$320,000

$ Amount

$0

Balance

$165,000

27.84%

Cash Flow

$0$0

$65,000$65,000

$485,000$0

FY 2011/12

65.98%

$165,000

$0$100,000


TotalFund Source

Fund Source


$$0.00

Fiscal Year

Total:


$485,000

$0 $485,000

TFCA Program ManagerProp K sales tax $165,000

$320,000$165,000

$0.00

AllocatedPlanned

Total:

FY 2012/13

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 12 of 17

84




Project Name:


Prop K Recommended: AllocationAllocationAllocation

Total:


Line%

Reimbursable

39 61.00%39 39.00% 0.00%

100%



Reimbursement

39 FY 2011/12 $96,50039 FY 2011/12 $3,50039 FY 2012/13 Environmental Studies (PA&ED) $32,50039 FY 2012/13 $32,500

$165,000



100%


61%



Environmental Studies (PA&ED)Planning/Conceptual Engineering


FY 2012/13

80%

Balance

58%$65,000$68,500

$32,500$0

6/30/2014


Total:


$100,000


Amount$96,500

$65,000FY 2011/12

$165,000

$36,000$32,500


$65,000Balance


$165,000Total: $165,000

$100,000

Fiscal Year

SFMTA has requested a multi-phase allocation to expedite this high priority project. A multi-phase allocation for planning/conceptual engineering and environmental studies is appropriate given the concurrent nature of the work. Design funds will be released by SFCTA upon completion of planning--see special condition #2.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 6-Authority Rec :FY 10/11 Page 13 of 17

85




Project Name:





Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


2.

3.

Notes:1.




SFMTA may not incur expenses for the design phase until Authority staff releases the funds ($32,500) pending receipt of evidence of completion of planning (e.g. copy of conceptual design). See deliverable #3.

Upon completion of the design phase (anticipated July 2013), provide evidence of final design, a revised construction cost estimate with major line items and unit costs, a full funding plan, and an implementation schedule.

Quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete by phase, percent complete for the overall project scope, a high level summary of community outreach efforts conducted that quarter, any design changes that SFMTA is considering, and a listing of completed deliverables in addition to the requirements described in the Standard Grant Agreement (SGA). See SGA for definitions.

Amount

The recommended allocation is contingent upon a 5YPP amendment to reprogram a total of $88,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 10/11 and $77,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 11/12 funds from the Pilot Installations of Innovative Treatments project to the (new) subject project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

Upon completion of the environmental phase (anticipated March 2013), provide evidence of final environmental clearance.

Upon completion of the planning phase (anticipated February 2012), provide conceptual design documents. See related special condition #2.

With the first quarterly progress report due October 15, 2011, provide 2-3 digital photos of typical before conditions.

Regarding the Fiscal Year Cash Flow Distribution by Phase, cash flow can exceed what is listed above for the planning/conceptual engineering and environmental studies phases as long as the total cash flow for the fiscal year does not exceed $100,000 in FY 2011/12.

The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA-(DPT or MUNI) up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year that SFMTA incurs charges. The approved FY 2010/11 overhead multiplier rates for SFMTA-DPT is 2.21 and SFMTA-MUNI is 3.11



86




Project Name:






EP Line Fiscal Year


39 FY 2011/12 $96,50039 FY 2011/12 $3,50039 FY 2012/13 $32,500

$132,500



EP Line Fiscal Year


39 FY 2012/13 $32,500

$32,500

100%

Total:

100% $0

100% $0


Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements - Design


Total:

100%

$0

75% $65,000

100% $0

100% $0

$0100% $0

73% $68,500

Environmental Studies (PA&ED) 100% $32,500Environmental Studies (PA&ED)Planning/Conceptual Engineering

SUB-PROJECT DETAIL

Fell and Oak Bikeway Improvements - Planning and Environmental




87


Project Area

Example concept design of Parking buffered bikeway on Fell St.(image courtesy of www.connectingthecity.org)

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 7-Maps.etc :FY 10/11 Page 16 of 17

88



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

Senior Transportation Planner

701-7603

[email protected]


Dustin White


701-4343


$165,000


Joel C. Goldberg

Manager of Grants Procurement

(415) 701-4499

(415) 701-4734

[email protected]


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Fell Oak Bikeway Improvements, 8-Signatures :FY 10/11 Page 17 of 17

89

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

SFM

TABi

cycle

Saf

ety

Edu

catio

n Cl

asse

s5CO

NA

lloca

ted

$165

,000

$165

,000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Saf

ety

Edu

catio

n Cl

asse

s5CO

ND

eobl

igat

ed($

130,

000)

($13

0,00

0)SF

MTA

Bicy

cle S

afet

y E

duca

tion

Clas

ses5

CON

Pend

ing

$130

,000

$130

,000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Saf

ety

Edu

catio

n Cl

asse

s CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

75,0

00$1

75,0

00SF

MTA

Bike

To

Wor

k D

ay P

rom

otio

n CO

NPe

ndin

g$1

00,0

00$1

00,0

00SF

MTA

Bike

To

Wor

k D

ay P

rom

otio

n CO

NA

lloca

ted

$80,

000

$80,

000

SFM

TABi

ke T

o W

ork

Day

Pro

mot

ion

CON

Prog

ram

med

$200

,000

$200

,000

SFM

TASa

fety

, Edu

catio

n, a

nd O

utre

ach

CON

Allo

cate

d$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0SF

MTA

Safe

ty, E

duca

tion,

and

Out

reac

h CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

5,00

0$5

5,00

0SF

MTA

Safe

ty, E

duca

tion,

and

Out

reac

h CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

36,0

00$1

36,0

00

SFM

TAPi

lot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

ts4

Plan

, PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TAJF

K D

rive

Park

ing-

Buffe

red

Bike

way

Plan

, PS

&E

Allo

cate

d$1

12,0

00$1

12,0

00

SFM

TAFe

ll an

d O

ak B

ikew

ay Im

prov

emen

ts4

Plan

, PS

&E

Pend

ing

$165

,000

$165

,000

SFM

TAPi

lot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

ts4

Plan

, PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$123

,000

$123

,000

SFM

TAPi

lot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

tsPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00

SFM

TAPi

lot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

tsPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00

SFM

TA

Pilo

t Ins

talla

tions

of I

nnov

ativ

e Tr

eatm

ents

- G

reen

Wav

e an

d Ba

ck-I

n A

ngled

Par

king

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

4,00

0$1

4,00

0

SFM

TAPi

lot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

ts -

Tool

box

Plan

, PA

&E

D,

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$86,

000

$86,

000

SFM

TASt

ate

of C

yclin

g Re

port

PLA

NA

lloca

ted

$131

,325

$131

,325

SFM

TASt

ate

of C

yclin

g Re

port

PLA

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

8,67

5$1

8,67

5SF

MTA

Stat

e of

Cyc

ling

Repo

rtPL

AN

Prog

ram

med

$160

,000

$160

,000

SFM

TASt

ate

of C

yclin

g Re

port

PLA

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

80,0

00$1

80,0

00

Proj

ect N

ame

Sub-

Cate

gory

1 (S

afet

y, E

duca

tion

and

Out

reac

h)

Fisc

al Y

ear

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Sub-

Cate

gory

2 (S

yste

m P

erfo

rman

ce a

nd In

nova

tions

)

Tota

lA

genc

yPh

ase

Stat

us

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Bic

ycle

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 3

9)

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

9 T

ab: E

P 39

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 1

of 1

0

90

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Proj

ect N

ame

Fisc

al Y

ear

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Tota

lA

genc

yPh

ase

Stat

us

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Bic

ycle

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 3

9)

SFM

TA

1-2

Nor

th P

oint

Stre

et b

icycle

lane

s, Th

e E

mba

rcad

ero

to V

an N

ess

Ave

nue1

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TA2-

6 D

ivisi

on S

treet

bicy

cle la

nes,

9th-

11th

Stre

ets1

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TA3-

2 M

ason

ic A

venu

e bi

cycle

lane

s, Fe

ll St

reet

to G

eary

Bou

levar

dCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

55,0

00$1

55,0

00

SFM

TA4-

3 Ill

inoi

s Stre

et b

icycle

lane

s, 16

th

Stre

et to

Car

go W

ay1

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TA5-

6 Ce

sar C

have

z/26

th S

treet

s cor

ridor

bi

cycle

lane

s, Sa

nche

z St

reet

to U

S 10

1CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$4

6,00

0$4

6,00

0

SFM

TA

6-3

Lag

una

Hon

da B

oulev

ard

bicy

cle

lanes

, Plaz

a St

reet

to W

oods

ide

Ave

nue1

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TABi

cycle

Cap

ital P

rojec

tsCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$0

$0SF

MTA

John

Mui

r Bik

e La

nes1

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

39,0

00$1

39,0

00SF

MTA

McC

oppi

n Bi

kew

ay1

CON

Allo

cate

d$2

8,00

0$2

8,00

0SF

MTA

Potre

ro B

ike

Lane

s1CO

NA

lloca

ted

$30,

000

$30,

000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Cap

ital P

rojec

ts1

CON

Prog

ram

med

$146

,000

$146

,000

SFM

TAA

leman

y Bi

ke L

anes

CON

Allo

cate

d$9

0,00

0$9

0,00

0SF

MTA

Porto

la Bi

ke L

anes

CON

Allo

cate

d$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0SF

MTA

FY 2

010/

11 B

TA L

ocal

Mat

chCO

NA

lloca

ted

$47,

000

$47,

000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Cap

ital P

rojec

tsCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

25,0

00$1

25,0

00SF

MTA

Bicy

cle C

apita

l Pro

jects

CON

Prog

ram

med

$175

,000

$175

,000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Cap

ital P

rojec

tsCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

05,0

00$3

05,0

00

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

n2Pl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$6

0,60

0$6

0,60

0D

PWM

arin

a G

reen

Bicy

cle T

rail2

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$14,

400

$14,

400

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

nPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

nPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

nPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

n -

2nd

Stre

et B

ike

Lane

s

Plan

, PA

&E

D,

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$15,

000

$15,

000

Sub-

Cate

gory

3 (B

icycle

Net

wor

k an

d Fa

ciliti

es Im

prov

emen

t)

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

9 T

ab: E

P 39

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 2

of 1

0

91

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Proj

ect N

ame

Fisc

al Y

ear

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Tota

lA

genc

yPh

ase

Stat

us

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Bic

ycle

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 3

9)

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

n -

Coor

dina

tion

Plan

, PA

&E

D,

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$15,

000

$15,

000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Net

wor

k Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

n -

Phela

n A

venu

e Bi

ke L

anes

Plan

, PA

&E

D,

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$30,

000

$30,

000

Any

E

ligib

leBi

cycle

Par

king

Plan

, PS

&E

Pend

ing

$125

,000

$125

,000

Any

E

ligib

leBi

cycle

Par

king

Plan

, PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$125

,000

$125

,000

Any

E

ligib

leBi

cycle

Par

king

Plan

, PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$75,

000

$75,

000

Any

E

ligib

leBi

cycle

Par

king

Plan

, PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$25,

000

$25,

000

SFM

TABi

cycle

Plan

Upd

ate

PLA

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

00,0

00$3

00,0

00

PCJP

BCa

ltrain

Bicy

cle P

arki

ngPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

10,0

00$1

10,0

00

PCJP

BCa

ltrain

Bicy

cle P

arki

ngPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

00,0

00$1

00,0

00

BART

Civi

c Ce

nter

Bicy

cle S

tatio

nPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$8

5,00

0$8

5,00

0

SFM

TACo

lore

d Pa

vem

ent T

reat

men

tsPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TACo

lore

d Pa

vem

ent T

reat

men

tsPl

an,

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$6

5,00

0$6

5,00

0

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

9 T

ab: E

P 39

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 3

of 1

0

92

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Proj

ect N

ame

Fisc

al Y

ear

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Tota

lA

genc

yPh

ase

Stat

us

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Bic

ycle

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 3

9)

SFM

TA14

th a

nd M

arke

t Stre

ets C

urb

Bulb

3PS

&E

Allo

cate

d$3

5,00

0$3

5,00

0

SFM

TASh

ared

Roa

dway

Bicy

cle M

arki

ngs3

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TASh

ared

Roa

dway

Bicy

cle M

arki

ngs

CON

Allo

cate

d$2

40,0

00$2

40,0

00

$395

,000

$1

,722

,000

$1

,374

,000

$1

,086

,000

$8

50,0

00

$5,4

27,0

00

$291

,325

$1

,350

,400

$1

65,0

00

$0

$0

$1,8

06,7

25

$103

,675

$3

71,6

00

$1,2

09,0

00

$1,0

86,0

00

$850

,000

$3

,620

,275

$765

,000

$1

,440

,000

$1

,286

,000

$1

,086

,000

$8

50,0

00

$5,4

27,0

00

$370

,000

$8

8,00

0 $0

$0

$0

$0

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

am

ende

d on

Mar

ch 3

0, 2

010

thro

ugh

Res.

10-5

2.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

4 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

$165

,000

for t

he F

ell a

nd O

ak B

ikew

ay P

rojec

t (Re

solu

tion

XX

-XX

, XX

.XX

.XX

XX

).Fe

ll an

d O

ak B

ikew

ay Im

prov

emen

ts P

rojec

t: A

dded

new

pro

ject.

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

010/

11 P

ilot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

ts: R

educ

ed p

rogr

amm

ing

from

$88

,000

to $

0.

$18,

000

prog

ram

med

to th

e La

guna

Hon

da P

rojec

t.$1

38,0

00 in

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

009/

10 fu

nds f

or th

e 4-

3 Ill

inoi

s Stre

et B

icycle

Lan

es p

rojec

t and

$59

,000

of $

77,0

00 in

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

009/

10 fu

nds p

rogr

amm

ed to

the

6-3

Lagu

na H

onda

Bou

levar

d Bi

cycle

Lan

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

emai

nin

g P

rogr

amm

ing

Cap

acit

yT

otal

Pro

gram

med

in A

men

ded

200

9 St

rate

gic

Pla

n*

Tot

al U

nal

loca

ted

Prog

ram

med

$125

,000

in u

nallo

cate

d Fi

scal

Yea

r 200

9/10

fund

s for

the

Bicy

cle C

apita

l Pro

jects

plac

ehol

der.

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

011/

12 P

ilot I

nsta

llatio

ns o

f Inn

ovat

ive

Trea

tmen

ts: R

educ

ed p

rogr

amm

ing

from

$20

0,00

0 to

$12

3,00

0.

Shar

ed R

oadw

ay B

icycle

Mar

king

s: Re

duce

d pr

ogra

mm

ing

from

$35

,000

to $

0.

1 5Y

PP to

add

thre

e ne

w p

rojec

ts: J

ohn

Mui

r Driv

e Bi

ke L

anes

; McC

oppi

n Bi

kew

ay; a

nd P

otre

ro A

venu

e Bi

ke L

anes

, whi

ch to

geth

er c

ompr

ise th

e Bi

cycle

Fac

ility

Impl

emen

tatio

n Pr

ojec

t (Re

solu

tion

11-

13, 0

9.28

.201

0).

3 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

$35,

000

for t

he 1

4th

and

Mar

ket S

treet

s Cur

b Bu

lb p

rojec

t (Re

solu

tion

11-4

3, 0

2.15

.201

1).

2 5Y

PP to

add

DPW

's M

arin

a G

reen

Bicy

cle T

rail

usin

g Pr

op K

fund

s rep

rogr

amm

ed fr

om th

e Fi

scal

Yea

r 201

0/11

MTA

Bicy

cle N

etw

ork

Plan

ning

and

Des

ign

plac

ehol

der (

Reso

lutio

n 11

-33,

12.

14.1

0).

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

14th

and

Mar

ket S

treet

s Cur

b Bu

lb: A

dded

new

pro

ject.

$55,

000

in F

iscal

Yea

r 201

0/11

fund

s for

the

2-6

Div

ision

Stre

et B

icycle

Lan

es P

rojec

t (fu

nded

by

anot

her s

ourc

e) w

ere

repr

ogra

mm

ed to

the

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

010/

11 B

icycle

Cap

ital P

rojec

ts p

laceh

olde

r as

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

9 T

ab: E

P 39

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 4

of 1

0

93

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Proj

ect N

ame

Fisc

al Y

ear

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Tota

lA

genc

yPh

ase

Stat

us

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Bic

ycle

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 3

9)

5 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

repr

ogra

m $

130,

000

for t

he F

iscal

Yea

r 201

1/12

Bicy

cle S

afet

y E

duca

tion

Clas

ses P

rojec

t (Re

solu

tion

XX

-XX

, XX

.XX

.XX

XX

).Fi

scal

Yea

r 201

1/12

Bicy

cle S

afet

y E

duca

tion

Clas

ses P

rojec

t: A

dded

new

pro

ject.

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

010/

11 B

icycle

Saf

ety

Edu

catio

n Cl

asse

s Pro

ject:

De-

oblig

atio

n of

$13

0,00

0.

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

9 T

ab: E

P 39

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 5

of 1

0

94



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:


Other EP Line Numbers: 1, 22, 33 Supervisorial District(s):

Mission - Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements

SCOPE


A. Transit

11

i. Major Capital Projects (transit)

a.1 Bus Rapid Transit/MUNI Metro Network

$378,470

Sufficient scope detail should be provided to allow Authority staff to evaluate the reasonablenes of the proposed budget and schedule. If there are prior allocations for the same project, provide an update on progress. 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.





P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 1-Scope : FY10/11 Page 1 of 14

95

of 3

MISSION-GENEVA TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

PROP K REQUEST OVERVIEW

SFMTA requests $378,470 in Prop K funds to provide the required 10% local match to a regional grant for the construction phase of the Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvement project ($83,000) as well as a $295,470 to cover a 28% project cost increase. In July 2007, the SFMTA received $940,000 in Regional Measure-2 (RM-2) funds through the Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) program, administered by TransForm and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, for the Mission & Geneva Pedestrian Improvements. The project, now called the “Mission – Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements”, addresses conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements and improves multimodal access for commuters and transit passengers at the Geneva Avenue and Mission Street intersection. On September 16, 2008, through Resolution 09-08, the Authority Board allocated $27,000 in Prop K funds to match $140,000 from the SR2T grant for the planning and design phase for the project. The requested funds will leverage $800,000 in RM-2 funds to construct the improvements at the intersection.

BACKGROUND

The intersection of Mission Street and Geneva Avenue in San Francisco is vital to the Bay Area’s regional transportation network. The intersection is an important hub in the Muni transit system, with several major bus routes (9AX, 9BX, 14, 14L, 29, 43, 54 bus lines) linking there and connecting to the Balboa Park BART Station located less than 0.5 miles away. Mission Street is an arterial that connects downtown with Daly City in San Mateo County. Geneva Avenue connects the Bayshore Corridor and the I-280 corridor. Continuing to the west via Ocean Avenue, Geneva is also a major route for many of those traveling to western neighborhoods.

The Mission-Geneva Project was identified as a part of the Authority’s Mission-Geneva Transportation Study that was approved by the Board in April 2007 (Resolution 07-63). SFMTA staff worked on outreach events collaboratively with the Authority, the Excelsior Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization (ENCoRe), and the Senior Action Network to develop the proposed improvement recommendations specific to the intersection of Mission & Geneva that will be implemented as part of this project.

In addition, the proposed project builds upon the adopted Traffic Calming Plan for the Excelsior District, which was funded with $169,273 in Prop K funds (Resolution 05-66), by improving left turn access on the two key arterials in the district. Facilitating the left turns at this corner will discourage cut-through and freight traffic from using smaller local streets. This project is also coordinated with SFMTA’s Geneva Avenue Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) study, which was funded with $150,000 in Prop K funds (Resolution 08-51). The scope of that study was to identify a series of progressive TPS measures including turn restrictions, turn prohibitions, parking removal, lane reconfigurations and possibly new dedicated transit lanes all designed to improve Muni service and performance on Geneva Avenue. That study is scheduled to be complete by the end of June 2011.

PROJECT SCOPE & GOALS

The scope of the project includes:

1. Installation of 2 transit bulbs at the northwest and southwest corners;

2. The reconfiguration of the northwest corner, which currently has a free right turn pocket, towards a more pedestrian-friendly design where the free right hand turn is removed;

3. Installation of transit rider amenities including NextBus real-time bus arrival information and bus shelters at the northeast and southwest corner bulb outs;

96

of 3

4. Additional safety improvements of new left turn pockets, from Mission Street onto Geneva, to discourage drivers from using residential streets to make this movement;

5. Utility relocations (fire hydrants, catch basins, and water valves);

6. Installation of ADA curb ramps at all corners, and;

7. Relocation of Muni and signal poles as required by the sidewalk bulbs and repainting of traffic/crosswalk markings, and northbound & southbound turn pockets on Mission Street.

Specific project goals and benefits are to:

1) Increase travel by foot and transit Sidewalk congestion and street crossing hazards discourage some regional travelers from riding local transit to and from BART. This project calms traffic, reduces crossing distances, and widens bus stop sidewalks at an on-street transit center. By expanding sidewalk space in an aesthetically pleasing way, it also enhances the outdoor environment and paths to transit.

2) Improve safety Out of 19 reported collisions on this corridor during a five year period (from 2001 to 2006), seven involved pedestrians and one involved a bicycle. Leading primary causes were: DUI (3); unsafe speed (2); pedestrian violation (2); pedestrian right-of-way violation (2); and improper turning (2). The implementation of traffic calming effects such as curb bus-bulbs and reduced crossing distances will improve pedestrian safety. The curb bus- bulbs also reduce traffic speeds of vehicles turning into the intersection.

3) Reduce congestion The improved safety conditions at Mission and Geneva will reduce congestion by improving access to the Balboa Park BART/Muni Station. Passengers will be more inclined to walk and/or take Muni to the Station than to drive. The Balboa Park BART/Muni Station is a key regional transit facility that also connects major East Bay urban centers to San Francisco.

The largest potential for congestion reduction from this project is on the Bay Bridge. In San Francisco, Highway 101 and Interstate 280 run parallel to the BART line. Congestion reduction on area bridges can be made possible by improving the ease of use and experience of passengers accessing BART stations such as at Balboa Park and increased transit trips at Balboa Park reduces Bay Bridge vehicle trips.

4) Implement Innovative Countermeasures This project tests the effectiveness of reconfiguring/eliminating a “free right turn movement” and installing bus bulbs (usually implemented to speed buses) as a traffic calming “combination.” COST INCREASE

The Prop K allocation for the design phase of this project identified a total project cost of $1,050,000. The new estimate for the total project cost based on 100% design is $1,345,470, an increase of 28%. The increase resulted from further information resulting from survey and detail design work. Specifically, the need to relocate Muni overhead poles, new traffic signals and street and sidewalk drainage work, which were not fully reflected in the original scope. See the major line item budget for a detailed comparison of before and after costs.

SFMTA identified a number of issues as the detailed engineering process progressed, which resulted in a 12 month project delay. Specifically, issues regarding drainage from the streets and sidewalks needed to be engineered and designed, which were not originally anticipated when the project was first scoped. In addition, the relocation costs of Muni overhead wires were underestimated in the original grant proposal which was completed prior to any detailed design or engineering work being completed. This necessitated the relocation of existing overhead and traffic signal poles. Finally,

97

of 3

some of the traffic signals at this intersection will be replaced with new signals and the poles will need to be relocated and in some cases replaced. With all of the detail design issues resolved, the construction documents for the project are now complete and the project is ready to go into the construction phase.

The SFMTA has already requested and secured a grant extension from TransForm for the RM2 Safe Routes to Transit Grant, however, it is contingent on securing the local match necessary to fully fund the construction phase by June 30, 2011.

PRIORITIZATION/5YPP AMENDMENTS

The Prop K funds requested for the Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvement project are programmed in the Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) - Spot/Small Projects subcategory of the 5YPP for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/TPS/MTA-MUNI Metro Network; the Overhead Rehabilitation Program subcategory of the 5YPP for Muni-Guideways; the Traffic Signal Upgrades subcategory of the 5YPP for Signals and Signs, and; the Corridor and Area-Specific Projects subcategory of the 5YPP for Pedestrian Circulation and Safety. All elements of the project are eligible for Spot Improvements funds, as the project is primarily related to transit access. The project was prioritized in the Mission-Geneva Neighborhood Transportation Plan, and is therefore an appropriate use of the Plan Implementation funds. The project includes the upgrade of traffic signals and is therefore eligible for the Traffic Signal Upgrade funds. The project includes the relocation of Muni overhead lines and is therefore eligible for Overhead Rehabilitation Program funds.

The recommended allocation is contingent upon 5YPP amendments to program the Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements project in Fiscal Year 2011/12 and reprogram a total of $139,653 in Prop K funds: $50,000 in Fiscal Year 2010/11 Prop K funds from the Overhead Rehabilitation Program, $60,470 in Fiscal Year 2007/08 Prop K funds de-obligated from Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013), and $29,183 in Fiscal Year 2005/06 Prop K funds de-obligated from the Pedestrian Signals: 16th Street and Folsom Street project (Res. 06-34, 140.907011) See attached 5YPP amendments for details.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FORCE ACCOUNT WORK

SFMTA is the Project Management agency and its role is performing the detail design (with DPW) and the conceptual layout of the intersection. DPW is the Contracting Agency and its role is performing the detail design, administering the contract, and overseeing the construction. The Contractor will build the bulb outs, bus stops, utility relocations, and signal changes.

The curb bulb-outs at the corners and bus stops, sidewalks and curb ramps will be maintained by the Department of Public Works. SFMTA is responsible for the maintenance of vehicular and pedestrian signals, traffic signs, and bus stop signage and pavement markings.

State standards and/or best practices are being used to design the project, specifically in regard to pedestrian and bicycle access. ADA design standards will also be incorporated.

98


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


1 2008/09 2 2008/2009

1 2008/09 1 2010/11Prepare Bid Documents 1 2010/11 2 2010/11

4 2010/11 N/A N/A1 2011/12 N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A 3 2011/12

Project Closeout (i.e., final expenses incurred) 4 2011/12













Completed 12/30/10


Construction contract: Advertised - June 2011* - Anticipated Award - July 2011*The Authority granted permission to advertise the contract at-risk on May 4, 2011.

Safe Routes to Transit Grant Expiration Date - 10.01.2012

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 2-Schedule : FY10/11 Page 2 of 14

99


FY 2011/12

Project Name:




Yes/No Total CostNoNoNoNoYesNoNo



$14,000$153,000

$1,178,470

$1,345,470 Expected Useful Life: 50 Years

Actual Cost

Engineer's Estimate, 100% design

Actual Cost

Total:Operations










Operations






$1,178,470 $378,470

$1,178,470 $378,470


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 3-Cost : FY10/11 Page 3 of 14

100



Description Cost% of Construction

Contract Perfomed byENVIRONMENTAL

1 Environmental, Legislation $14,000 2% DPT

DESIGN ENGINEERING 1 Design, Planning & Coordination $21,000 DPT Engineering2 Design, Planning & Coordination $132,000 DPW (Bureau of Engineering)

Planning & Design Phase Total $153,000 17%

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 Contract Cost $875,490 Contractor2 Contingency $83,980 10% N/A3 Ct Prep & DPW Eng Support $88,000 10% DPW (Bureau of Engineering)4 Construction Engineering/Insp $69,000 8% DPW (Bureau of Con. Mgmt.)5 Construction Support $62,000 7% DPT and DPW

Construction Phase Total $1,178,470

TOTAL COST OF ALL PHASES* $1,345,470

ENVIRONMENTALSFMTA-DPT Overhead Rate: 2.21

Hours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost10 Engineer (5241) $124,774 $275,751 0.00 $1,32670 Associate Engineer (5207) $105,950 $234,150 0.03 $7,88055 Engineer Associate II (5366) $87,178 $192,663 0.03 $5,094

135 Total 0.06 $14,300TOTAL round $14,000

DESIGN ENGINEERINGDPW Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Overhead Rate: 2.47SFMTA Overhead Rate: 2.21

SFMTAHours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

37 Engineer (5241) $124,774 $275,751 0.02 $4,905110 Associate Engineer (5207) $105,950 $234,150 0.05 $12,38336 Engineer Associate II (5366) $87,178 $192,663 0.02 $3,335

183 Total 0.09 $20,623DPT Engineering round $21,000

DPWHours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

80 Engineer (5241) $124,774 $308,192 0.038 $11,854600 Associate Engineer (5207) $105,950 $261,697 0.288 $75,489510 Engineer Associate I (5364) $74,412 $183,798 0.245 $45,066

1190 Total 0.572 $132,409DPW (BOE) round $132,000

$153,031TOTAL round $153,000

TOTAL PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT STAFFING

* The project cost has increased by $295,470, or 28%. That increase is mostly due to the $274,490 increase in the construction contract (detailed below) and a $20,980 increase in construction management and support.

1. Provide a major line item budget, with subtotals by 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.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 4-Detailed Budget : FY10/11 Page 4 of 14

101


CONSTRUCTION PHASEDPW Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Overhead Rate: 2.47SFMTA-DPT Overhead Rate: 2.21

DPW Ct Prep & DPW Eng Support Hours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

75 Senior Engineer (5211) $141,960 $350,641 0.036 $12,643125 Administrative Engineer (5174) $131,976 $325,981 0.060 $19,590520 Construction Inspector (6318) $90,818 $224,320 0.250 $56,080

720 Total 0.346 $88,314DPW (BCM) round $88,000

DPW Construction Engineering/InspHours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

60 Senior Engineer (5211) $141,960 $350,641 0.029 $10,115100 Administrative Engineer (5174) $131,976 $325,981 0.048 $15,672400 Construction Inspector (6318) $90,818 $224,320 0.192 $43,139

560 Total 0.269 $68,925DPW (BCM) round $69,000

SFMTA Construction Support Hours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

20 Engineer (5241) $124,774 $275,751 0.01 $2,651150 Associate Engineer (5207) $105,950 $234,150 0.07 $16,886

170 Total 0.08 $19,537

DPW Construction Support Hours Position Base Salary Fully Burdened FTE Cost

30 Senior Engineer (5211) $141,960 $350,641 0.014 $5,057300 Associate Engineer (5207) $105,950 $261,697 0.144 $37,745

330 Total 0.159 $42,802

DPT and DPW Total $62,339DPW & DPT round $62,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTACT

Bid Item Description Original Cost Current Estimate Change1 6" Concrete Curb 16,000$ 22,150$ 6,150$ 2 8" Concrete Base 150,000$ 205,000$ 55,000$ 3 3.5" Concrete Sidewalk 180,000$ 63,000$ (117,000)$ 4 Curb Ramps 40,000$ 36,000$ (4,000)$ 5 Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface 40,000$ 30,000$ (10,000)$ 6 Catchbasin 10,000$ 16,000$ 6,000$ 7 Sewer Culvert 10,000$ 15,840$ 5,840$ 8 Sewer Manhole 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 9 Relocate Fire Hydrant 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 10 Relocate Water Main 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ 11 Relocate Water Meters 10,000$ 100,000$ 90,000$ 12 Relocate Side Sewer Vents 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 13 Relocate Streetlight/Traffic Signal 50,000$ 162,000$ 112,000$ 14 Traffic Routing & Restriping 5,000$ 96,000$ 91,000$ 15 Overhead Re-routing Work -$ 59,500$ 59,500$

Total 601,000$ 875,490$ 274,490$

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 4-Detailed Budget : FY10/11 Page 5 of 14

102


FY

Project Name:






2011/12


$378,470


$2,962,000

$19,600,445


The 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) amount is the entire amount of Prop K funds available for allocation in FY 2011/12 from the following categories: - Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) - Various Spot Improvements in the 5YPP for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/TPS/MTA-MUNI Metro Network ($100,000 in FY 2011/12 funds and $100,000 in FY 2010/11 funds);- Overhead Rehabilitation Program in the 5YPP for Muni-Guideways ($1,375,000 in FY 2011/12 funds and $1,187,000 in FY 2010/11 funds), and;- Plan Implementation Program in the 5YPP for Pedestrian Circulation and Safety ($100,000 in FY 2011/12 funds and $100,000 in FY 2010/11 funds).

The requested allocation would require deobligation of at least $60,470 in FY 2007/08 Prop K funds from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II project (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) and a 5YPP amendment to the Signals and Signs category to program the Mission-Geneva Transit and Pedestrian Improvements project. It would also require a 5YPP amendment to the Pedestrian Circulation and Safety category to program $29,183 in FY 2005/06 Prop K funds deobligated from the completed Pedestrian Signals: 16th Street and Folsom Street project (Res. 06-34, Project 140.907011) to the subject project. The Strategic Plan amount does not include the deobligations. See attached 5YPP amendments for details.

The Strategic Plan amount includes $333,000 for the entire BRT/TPS/MTA-MUNI Metro Network category in FY 2011/12 as well as $6,988,318 in unallocated FY 2010/11 funds; $2,500,000 for the entire Muni-Guideways category in FY 2011/12 as well as $3,871,882 in prior year unallocated funds; $3,270,000 for the entire Signal and Signs category as well as $454,245 in prior year unallocated funds, and; $1,716,000 for the entire Pedestrian Circulation and Safety category in FY 2011/12 as well as $467,000 in prior year unallocated funds.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 5-Funding : FY10/11 Page 6 of 14

103


Programmed$288,817

$288,817



%

10.00%


Programmed$288,817

$288,817





Annually

100.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Cash Flow

$ Amount

$940,000



$89,653

69.86%

$378,470

$0

$0

52.00%


$378,470

$1,345,470$0

$1,345,470

$967,000

$0

$378,470

$0Balance

$27,000$940,000

$0$940,000

$$104,444.44

$800,000

50.00%

$89,653Total:

Regional Measure 2 (Safe Routes to Transit)

Allocated TotalPlannedFund Source$378,470$800,000$800,000

$89,653

$89,653

$0.00

$0

67.88%

$1,178,470

$1,178,470

$0

Prop K sales tax


AllocatedPlanned$405,470

Total

Fund Source

Proposition K Sales Tax

FY 2011/12

Total:

Fiscal Year

Regional Measure 2 (Safe Routes to Transit)Fund Source

Regional Measure 2 (Safe Routes to Transit)

Total:

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 5-Funding : FY10/11 Page 7 of 14

104




Project Name:



Total:


Line%

Reimbursable

1 26.00%22M 13.00%33 16.00%40 45.00%

100%



Reimbursement

1 FY 2011/12 $100,00022M FY 2011/12 $50,00033 FY 2011/12 $60,47040 FY 2011/12 $168,000

$378,470



Trigger:

Phase

FY 2011/12

ConstructionBalance

26%


$278,470

3/31/2013

Construction

ConstructionConstructionConstruction



Amount

Amount

$168,000

$50,000FY 2011/12


$378,470

$378,470

40%56% $168,000

$0100%

$228,470



$100,000

$0

$278,470Balance

$168,000$228,470

FY 2011/12

Total:

Total: $378,470

FY 2011/12 $60,470

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 6-Authority Rec : FY10/11 Page 8 of 14

105




Project Name:




Deliverables:1.

2.

3.


2.

3.

Notes:1.

2.

3.

Supervisorial District(s):

11 32.12%



SFMTA should request reimbursement of Prop K funds by Expenditure Plan number in consecutive order (e.g., EP 1 first).

The recommended allocation is contingent upon the SFMTA returning to the Authority at least $60,471 in cost savings from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) and deobligating the funds from the signal project. SFMTA estimates a total saving of $3,273,635 to be returned to the Authority and reprogrammed to other eligible Signals and Signs upgrade projects, including the subject project.

140.907041

Upon project completion, provide electronic GIS shapefiles that are compatible with the Authority's GIS system.


The recommended allocation is contingent upon 5YPP amendments to 1) reprogram $60,470 in FY 2007/08 funds deobligated from the completed Park Presidio 19th Ave Signal Upgrades, Phase II project (Res. 08-60, Project 133.907013) to the subject project in the Signals and Signs 5YPP and 2) to reprogram $29,183 in Fiscal Year 2005/06 Prop K funds deobligated from the completed Pedestrian Signals: 16th Street and Folsom Street project (Res. 06-34, 140.907011) to the subject project in the the Pedestrian Circulation and Safety 5YPP. See attached 5YPP amendments for details.

Upon project completion, provide 2-3 digital photos of completed project.

SFMTA provided evidence of completion of design (e.g. copy of certifications page) in April 2011.

Quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete for the overall project scope in addition to the requirements described in the Standard Grant Agreement (SGA). See SGA for definitions.

Consistent with Prop K policies, the project sponsor shall expend non-Prop K funds first to the extent possible. Unless a specific exception is pre-approved by the Authority, Prop K funds will not be reimbursed at a rate greater than their proportional share of the approved funding plan (i.e. 32.12%).

The Authority will only reimburse SFMTA up to the approved overhead multiplier rate for the fiscal year that SFMTA incurs charges. The approved FY 2010/11 overhead multiplier rates for SFMTA-DPT is 2.21 and SFMTA-MUNI is 3.11


106




Project Name:






EP Line Fiscal Year


1 FY 2011/12 $100,000

$100,000



EP Line Fiscal Year


22M FY 2011/12 $50,000

$50,000

PhaseCumulative % Reimbursable

$328,470

Total:

13% $328,470

Construction13% $328,470

26% $278,47026% $278,470

13%

Total:

13% $328,47013% $328,470

Balance

Muni-Guideways (EP22M)

26% $278,470

26%

SUB-PROJECT DETAIL

BRT/TPS/Muni Metro Network (EP1)

$278,47026% $278,470


Construction



107




Project Name:






EP Line Fiscal Year


33 FY 2011/12 $60,470

$60,470



EP Line Fiscal Year


40 FY 2011/12 $168,000

$168,000

$318,000

Total:

16% $318,00016% $318,000

Construction 16% $318,00016% $318,00016%

Pedestrian Circulation and Safety (EP 40)


$210,470Total:

44%

$210,47044% $210,47044%44% $210,470

Signals and Signs (EP 33)


Construction 44% $210,470


108

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

MA

PS

AN

D D

RA

WIN

GS

Inse

rt or

atta

ch fi

les o

f map

s, dr

awin

gs, p

hoto

s of c

urre

nt c

ondi

tions

, pho

to c

ompo

sitio

ns, e

tc. t

o su

ppor

t und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

pro

ject s

cope

and

eva

luat

ion

of h

ow g

eogr

aphi

c di

vers

ity w

as c

onsid

ered

in th

e pr

ojec

t prio

ritiz

atio

n pr

oces

s.

This

text

box

and

the

blue

hea

der m

ay b

e de

leted

to b

ette

r acc

omm

odat

e an

y gr

aphi

cs.

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\M

TA-D

PT M

issi

on G

enev

a A

RF, 7

A-Sc

hem

atic

: FY

10/1

1Pa

ge 1

2 of

14

109

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

MA

PS

AN

D D

RA

WIN

GS

Inse

rt or

atta

ch fi

les o

f map

s, dr

awin

gs, p

hoto

s of c

urre

nt c

ondi

tions

, pho

to c

ompo

sitio

ns, e

tc. t

o su

ppor

t und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

pro

ject s

cope

and

eva

luat

ion

of h

ow g

eogr

aphi

c di

vers

ity w

as

cons

ider

ed in

the

proj

ect p

riorit

izat

ion

proc

ess.

This

text

box

and

the

blue

hea

der m

ay b

e de

leted

to b

ette

r acc

omm

odat

e an

y gr

aphi

cs.

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\M

TA-D

PT M

issi

on G

enev

a A

RF, 7

B- M

aps

: FY1

0/11

Page

13

of 1

4

110



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:

Signature:

Date:

(415) 701-4580

[email protected]


Lauren Slingsby


(415) 701-4737


$378,470


Joel Goldberg

Manager, Grants Procurement

(415) 701-4331

(415) 701-4734

[email protected]


Assistant Engineer


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\MTA-DPT Mission Geneva ARF, 8-Signatures : FY10/11 Page 14 of 14

111

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

SFM

TARa

ised

Pave

men

t Mar

kers

PRO

C,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$50,

000

$50,

000

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti an

d U

pgra

de

Prog

ram

PRO

C,

CON

Allo

cate

d$2

50,0

00$2

50,0

00

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti Pr

ogra

m

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti Pr

ogra

m

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

SFM

TA15

MPH

Zon

e N

ear S

choo

ls 2PL

AN

, PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$321

,700

$321

,700

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti Pr

ogra

m

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

n G

raffi

ti Pr

ogra

m

CON

Prog

ram

med

$320

,000

$320

,000

SFM

TAG

olde

n G

ate

Sign

al U

pgra

de

(Div

isade

ro to

Fra

nklin

)PS

&E

Prog

ram

med

$375

,000

$375

,000

SFM

TAG

olde

n G

ate

Sign

al U

pgra

de

(Div

isade

ro to

Fra

nklin

)CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

,800

,000

$1,8

00,0

00

SFM

TAH

ighw

ay 1

Sig

nal U

pgra

des (

Lake

St.

to Ju

nipe

ro S

erra

) Pha

se 3

PS

&E

, CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

,750

,000

$2,7

50,0

00

SFM

TALi

ght R

ail C

orrid

or S

igna

l and

Pa

vem

ent

Mar

king

Impr

ovem

ents

1

PS&

E,

CON

, PR

OC

Allo

cate

d$9

8,75

5$9

8,75

5

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

) 1TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$0

$0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

) 1TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

,245

$1,2

45

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TAJo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty F

und

(Con

duits

for

futu

re si

gnals

)TB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

0,00

0$5

0,00

0

SFM

TASi

gnal

Mod

ifica

tion

Cont

ract

33

PS&

EPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

33,0

00$1

33,0

00SF

MTA

Sign

al M

odifi

catio

n Co

ntra

ct 3

3PS

&E

Allo

cate

d$3

17,0

00$3

17,0

00SF

MTA

Sign

al M

odifi

catio

n Co

ntra

ct 3

3CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

,000

,000

$2,0

00,0

00

SFM

TATr

affic

Sig

nal C

ontro

ller H

ardw

are

Upg

rade

sCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$4

75,0

00$4

75,0

00

Sign

Upg

rade

s

Traf

fic S

igna

l Upg

rade

s

Pave

men

t Mar

king

s

Tota

lA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

ePh

ase

Stat

usFi

scal

Yea

r

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Sign

als

and

Sig

ns

(EP

33)

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

3 T

ab: E

P 33

5YP

P AM

END

7.2

6.11

Page

1 o

f 2

112

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Tota

lA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

ePh

ase

Stat

usFi

scal

Yea

r

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Sign

als

and

Sig

ns

(EP

33)

SFM

TAM

issio

n-G

enev

a Tr

ansit

and

Pe

dest

rian

Impr

ovem

ents

3CO

NA

lloca

ted

$60,

470

$60,

470

SFM

TAV

an N

ess B

RT S

Fgo

signa

l im

prov

emen

tsPS

&E

Pr

ogra

mm

ed$5

68,7

50$5

68,7

50

SFM

TAV

an N

ess B

RT S

Fgo

signa

l im

prov

emen

tsCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

,706

,250

$1,7

06,2

50

SFM

TA19

th A

ve P

edes

trian

Impr

ovem

ent

Proj

ect.

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$300

,000

$300

,000

SFM

TASu

nset

Bou

levar

d Pe

dest

rian

Impr

ovem

ent P

rojec

tPS

&E

, CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

29,0

00$1

29,0

00

SFM

TAM

ason

ic A

venu

e Si

gnal

Upg

rade

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$187

,195

$187

,195

$383

,000

$7

37,0

00

$4,8

37,1

15

$2,0

76,2

50

$4,9

20,0

00

$12,

953,

365

$250

,000

$4

15,7

55

$382

,170

$0

$0

$1

,047

,925

$1

33,0

00

$321

,245

$4

,454

,945

$2

,076

,250

$4

,920

,000

$1

1,90

5,44

0

$750

,000

$3

70,0

00

$3,2

70,0

00

$370

,000

$4

,920

,000

$9

,680

,000

$3

,870

,765

$3

,870

,765

$4

,237

,765

$3

,870

,765

$2

,303

,650

$5

97,4

00

$597

,400

$5

97,4

00

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

ado

pted

on

July

28, 2

009

thro

ugh

Res.

10-0

7.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

2 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

the

15 M

PH Z

one

Nea

r Sch

ools

proj

ect a

nd re

prog

ram

$32

1,70

0 Fi

scal

Yea

r 200

7/08

Pro

p K

fund

s deo

blig

ated

from

Par

k Pr

esid

io 1

9th

Ave

Sig

nal U

pgra

des,

Phas

e II

(Res

. 08

-60,

Pro

ject 1

33.9

0701

3) (R

es. X

X-X

X, M

O.D

A.Y

EA

R). T

he p

endi

ng d

3 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

the

Miss

ion-

Gen

eva

Tran

sit a

nd P

edes

trian

Impr

ovem

ents

pro

ject a

nd re

prog

ram

$60

,470

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

007/

08 P

rop

K fu

nds d

eobl

igat

ed fr

om P

ark

Pres

idio

19t

h A

ve S

igna

l U

pgra

des,

Phas

e II

(Res

. 08-

60, P

rojec

t 133

.907

013)

(Res

. XX

-XX

, M

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

** "

Deo

blig

ated

from

prio

r 5Y

PP c

ycles

" in

clude

s deo

blig

atio

ns fr

om a

lloca

tions

app

rove

d in

fisc

al ye

ars p

rior t

o th

e cu

rren

t 5Y

PP p

erio

d an

d re

dire

cted

to a

lloca

tions

in th

e cu

rren

t 5Y

PP p

erio

d. T

his

amou

nt d

oes n

ot in

clude

deo

blig

atio

ns th

at w

ere

inclu

d

1 $5

0,00

0 in

FY

200

9/10

Join

t Opp

ortu

nity

fund

s and

$48

,755

in F

Y 2

010/

11 Jo

int O

ppor

tuni

ty fu

nds w

ere

redi

rect

ed to

FY

201

0/11

for t

he L

ight

Rail

Cor

ridor

Sig

nal a

nd P

avem

ent M

arki

ng

Impr

ovem

ents

pro

ject.

Prog

ram

med

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Deo

blig

ated

fro

m p

rior

5Y

PP

cyc

les**

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

emai

nin

g P

rogr

amm

ing

Cap

acit

y

Tot

al U

nal

loca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

200

9 St

rate

gic

Pla

n*

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 3

3 T

ab: E

P 33

5YP

P AM

END

7.2

6.11

Page

2 o

f 2

113

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

SFM

TACi

tyw

ide

Safe

ty a

nd C

ircul

atio

n Im

prov

emen

ts 1

TBD

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TACi

tyw

ide

Safe

ty a

nd C

ircul

atio

n Im

prov

emen

tsTB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00

SFM

TACi

tyw

ide

Safe

ty a

nd C

ircul

atio

n Im

prov

emen

tsTB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00

SFM

TACi

tyw

ide

Safe

ty a

nd C

ircul

atio

n Im

prov

emen

tsTB

DPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00

SFM

TACo

nver

ting

Stan

dard

Cro

ssw

alks t

o Co

ntin

enta

l Cro

ssw

alks

PLA

N/C

ER,

PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$80,

000

$80,

000

SFM

TACo

nver

ting

Stan

dard

Cro

ssw

alks t

o Co

ntin

enta

l Cro

ssw

alks 1

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

30,0

00$1

30,0

00

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Coun

ting

PLA

N /

CE

R,

PRO

CA

lloca

ted

$55,

000

$55,

000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Coun

ting

PRO

CA

lloca

ted

$25,

000

$25,

000

SFM

TARe

d V

isibi

lity

Curb

s

PLA

N/C

ER,

PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$30,

000

$30,

000

SFM

TARe

d V

isibi

lity

Curb

s

CER,

PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$30,

000

$30,

000

SFM

TARe

-Ope

n Cl

osed

Cro

ssw

alks

ER,

PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$230

,000

$230

,000

SFM

TARe

-ope

ning

Clo

sed

Cros

swalk

s at

Mar

ina

/ Bu

chan

nan

CON

Allo

cate

d$9

7,00

0$9

7,00

0

SFM

TARe

-ope

ning

Clo

sed

Cros

swalk

s

CER,

PS

&E

, CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

,000

$3,0

00

Ped

estr

ian

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 4

0)

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Phas

eSt

atus

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate Fi

scal

Yea

rA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

eTo

tal

City

wid

e Pe

dest

rian

Safe

ty &

Circ

ulat

ion

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

0 T

ab: E

P 40

5YP

P 05

.20.

11Pa

ge 1

of 4

114

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Ped

estr

ian

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 4

0)

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Phas

eSt

atus

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate Fi

scal

Yea

rA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

eTo

tal

BART

BART

Tra

nsit

Conn

ectiv

ity a

t Re

gion

al H

ubs (

Em

barc

ader

o BA

RT

Stat

ion)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$50,

000

$50,

000

SFM

TABe

tter S

treet

s Pro

jects

CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

00,0

00$2

00,0

00SF

MTA

Bette

r Stre

ets P

rojec

ts

CON

Prog

ram

med

$166

,000

$166

,000

SFM

TABe

tter S

treet

s Pro

jects

CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

34,0

00$2

34,0

00SF

MTA

Bette

r Stre

ets P

rojec

ts

CON

Prog

ram

med

$200

,000

$200

,000

SFM

TA

Gol

den

Gat

e Pa

rk a

nd D

uboc

e A

venu

e Pe

dest

rian

Impr

ovem

ents

: G

olde

n G

ate

Park

Ped

estri

an

Impr

ovem

ents

CON

Allo

cate

d$9

3,00

0$9

3,00

0

SFM

TAPl

an Im

plem

enta

tion3

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$0$0

SFM

TAPl

an Im

plem

enta

tion3

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$61,

183

$61,

183

SFM

TAM

issio

n-G

enev

a Tr

ansit

and

Pe

dest

rain

Impr

ovem

ents

3CO

NPe

ndin

g$1

68,0

00$1

68,0

00

SFM

TAPl

an Im

plem

enta

tion

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$100

,000

$100

,000

SFM

TAPl

an Im

plem

enta

tion

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$100

,000

$100

,000

SFM

TASt

ockt

on S

treet

Ped

estri

an

Enh

ance

men

ts

/E

R,

PA&

ED

, Pr

ogra

mm

ed$8

0,00

0$8

0,00

0

SFM

TASc

hool

Cro

ssw

alk M

ainte

nanc

eCO

NA

lloca

ted

$75,

000

$75,

000

SFM

TASc

hool

Cro

ssw

alk M

ainte

nanc

eCO

NA

lloca

ted

$75,

000

$75,

000

SFM

TACr

ossw

alk M

ainte

nanc

eCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0SF

MTA

Cros

swalk

Main

tena

nce

CON

Prog

ram

med

$75,

000

$75,

000

SFM

TACr

ossw

alk M

ainte

nanc

eCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$7

5,00

0$7

5,00

0

Cros

swalk

s

Corr

idor

and

Are

a-Sp

ecifi

c Pr

ojec

ts

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

0 T

ab: E

P 40

5YP

P 05

.20.

11Pa

ge 2

of 4

115

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Ped

estr

ian

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 4

0)

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Phas

eSt

atus

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate Fi

scal

Yea

rA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

eTo

tal

SFM

TAD

uboc

e A

venu

e Pe

dest

rian

Impr

ovem

ents

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

73,0

00$1

73,0

00

SFM

TA

Gol

den

Gat

e Pa

rk a

nd D

uboc

e A

venu

e Pe

dest

rian

Impr

ovem

ents

: D

uboc

e A

venu

e Cu

rb E

xten

sions

PS&

EA

lloca

ted

$47,

000

$47,

000

SFM

TA14

th/M

arke

t Cur

b Bu

lbCO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$5

3,00

0$5

3,00

0

SFM

TAM

edian

s, Bu

lb-O

uts &

Sid

ewalk

W

iden

ing

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$125

,000

$125

,000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Refu

ge Is

lands

2PS

&E

Pend

ing

$25,

000

$25,

000

SFM

TAM

edian

s, Bu

lb-O

uts &

Sid

ewalk

W

iden

ing 2

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$150

,000

$150

,000

SFM

TAM

edian

s, Bu

lb-O

uts &

Sid

ewalk

W

iden

ing

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$200

,000

$200

,000

SFM

TAM

edian

s, Bu

lb-O

uts &

Sid

ewalk

W

iden

ing

PS&

E,

CON

Prog

ram

med

$200

,000

$200

,000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Sign

als (i

nclu

ding

co

untd

owns

and

APS

) PS

&E

, CO

NA

lloca

ted

$214

,000

$214

,000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Sign

als (i

nclu

ding

co

untd

owns

and

APS

)

PS&

E,

CON

, PR

OC

Prog

ram

med

$36,

000

$36,

000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Sign

als (i

nclu

ding

co

untd

owns

and

APS

)

PS&

E,

CON

, PR

OC

Prog

ram

med

$1,0

00,0

00$1

,000

,000

SFM

TAPe

dest

rian

Sign

als (i

nclu

ding

co

untd

owns

and

APS

)

PS&

E,

CON

, PR

OC

Prog

ram

med

$250

,000

$250

,000

Med

ians,

Bulb

-Out

s & S

idew

alk W

iden

ing

Pede

stria

n Si

gnals

(Cou

ntdo

wn

& A

PS)

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

0 T

ab: E

P 40

5YP

P 05

.20.

11Pa

ge 3

of 4

116

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Ped

estr

ian

Cir

cula

tion

/Sa

fety

(E

P 4

0)

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Phas

eSt

atus

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate Fi

scal

Yea

rA

genc

yPr

ojec

t Nam

eTo

tal

$833

,000

$9

88,0

00

$1,8

45,1

83

$809

,000

$1

,105

,000

$5

,580

,183

$783

,000

$5

71,0

00

$193

,000

$0

$0

$1

,547

,000

$5

0,00

0 $4

17,0

00

$1,6

52,1

83

$809

,000

$1

,105

,000

$4

,033

,183

$833

,000

$1

,088

,000

$1

,716

,000

$8

09,0

00

$1,1

05,0

00

$5,5

51,0

00

$29,

183

$29,

183

$29,

183

$129

,183

$0

$0

$0

$0

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

am

ende

d on

Mar

ch 3

0, 2

010

thro

ugh

Res.

10-5

2.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

Tot

al U

nal

loca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

Am

end

ed 2

009

Stra

tegi

c P

lan

*D

eob

ligat

ed f

rom

pri

or 5

YP

P c

ycle

s**

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

emai

nin

g P

rogr

amm

ing

Cap

acit

y

1 $75

,000

in u

ndes

igna

ted

FY 2

010/

11 C

ityw

ide

Safe

ty a

nd C

ircul

atio

n Im

prov

emen

ts fu

nds w

ere

adde

d to

$55

,000

in F

Y 2

010/

11 fu

nds f

or th

e Co

nver

ting

Stan

dard

Cro

ssw

alks t

o Co

ntin

enta

l Cr

ossw

alks p

rojec

t for

the

tota

l FY

201

0/11

allo

catio

n of

$13

0,00

0 to

the

proj

ect.

** "

Deo

blig

ated

from

prio

r 5Y

PP c

ycles

" in

clude

s all

deob

ligat

ions

from

allo

catio

ns a

ppro

ved

in fi

scal

year

s prio

r to

the

curr

ent 5

YPP

per

iod.

Thi

s am

ount

doe

s not

inclu

de d

eobl

igat

ions

that

wer

e in

clude

d in

the

2009

Stra

tegi

c Pl

an.

Prog

ram

med

2 $25

,000

from

$17

5,00

0 pr

ogra

mm

ed in

FY

201

1/12

Med

ians,

Bulb

-out

s & S

idew

al W

iden

ing

fund

s wer

e all

ocat

ed in

FY

201

1/12

for P

edes

train

Ref

uge

Islan

ds.

3 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

the

Miss

ion-

Gen

eva

Tran

sit a

nd P

edes

trian

Impr

ovem

ents

pro

ject a

nd re

prog

ram

$29

,183

in F

Y 2

005/

06 P

rop

K fu

nds d

eobl

igat

ed fr

om th

e Pe

dest

rian

Sign

als: 1

6th

Stre

et

and

Folso

m S

treet

pro

ject (

Res.

06-3

4, 1

40.9

0701

1) (R

es. X

X-X

X, M

O.D

A.Y

EA

R).

The

pend

ing

deob

ligat

ion

is in

clude

d in

the

"Deo

blig

ated

from

prio

r 5Y

PP c

ycles

." M

issio

n-G

enev

a fu

ndin

g als

o in

clude

s $10

0,00

0 an

d $3

8,81

3 in

FY

s 201

0/11

and

201

1/12

Pro

p K

fund

s, re

spec

tively

from

the

Plan

Impl

emen

tatio

n pl

aceh

olde

r.

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

0 T

ab: E

P 40

5YP

P 05

.20.

11Pa

ge 4

of 4

117


118



Project Name:



Category:

Subcategory:

EP Project/Program:



Integrated TDM Public-Private Partnership Project

SCOPE

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

D. TSM/Strategic Initiatives

Citywide

i. TDM/Parking Management


a. Transportation Demand Management/Parking Management

$78,866




Scope of work begins on next page.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 1-Scope :FY 10/11 Page 1 of 21

119

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership Scope.doc Page 2 of 20

Scope of Work

Integrated Travel Demand Management (TDM) Public-Private Partnership Project

PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the Integrated Travel Demand Management (TDM) Public-Private Partnership Project (Project) is to create an innovative and mutually-reinforcing set of TDM resources and activities at the community-level, in order to measurably reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and criteria pollutants. Goals include: employing multiple, complementary approaches to increase the overall effectiveness of each individual strategy; fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors and among private sector firms and institutions on TDM and climate change issues; and ensuring the sustainability of newly created TDM programs.

Prop K funds are sought to leverage a grant of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds through the Bay Area Climate Initiative (BACI) of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

The City and County of San Francisco’s employer-based TDM programs have grown rapidly in the past 5 years, largely through the San Francisco Department of the Environment (DOE) administered Commuter Benefits Program (now mandated by local ordinance for employers with 20+ employees), Emergency Ride Home Program, and Regional Rideshare Program.1 The City’s TDM activities are poised for expansion through the creation of new, cooperative, and comprehensive public-private partnerships, which collectively will achieve reductions in emissions by using transit, shuttles, and TDM strategies as emissions reduction strategies.

In order to scale the program (increase number of travelers touched) and deepen the engagement among employers and institutions (e.g., challenge existing employers to do more), the involved agencies believe a quantum shift is required in how the City “does TDM”. The Project will serve to develop a more flexible and robust capacity to implement multi-agency TDM throughout the City, utilizing two main break-through approaches:

• a more integrated program approach on the part of multiple City agencies; and

• an increased level of coordinated engagement with the private sector.

1 MTC delegated the regional rideshare coordination role for SF to SFDOE in 2009.

120


The Project consists of three main areas of activity:

1. Policy Coordination: Reviewing and revising existing TDM policies and programs at each agency and across agencies in a coordinated fashion to meet common goals and objectives, and establishing a consistent policy framework for subsequent implementation of the Integrated TDM Partnership subprojects.

2. Build a Flexible Network of TMAs: This component will involve facilitated forums for several groups of employers to explore areas of mutual TDM interest and potential partnerships as well as implementation of an agreed set of priority projects that directly address common needs. Representative geographical and functional TMA “groups” targeted for this project through whom potential success of TMA formation will be demonstrated include:

a. Downtown San Francisco Employers b. Major Medical Institutions c. West Side Organizations

These groups have already demonstrated interest and commitment to participating in pilot TMA formation.

3. Pilot Project Implementation: Implementing, and then conducting an evaluation of, trip reduction and GHG/criteria pollutant reduction results from new TDM programs. The different programs/services identified for this component include:

a. Parking Cashout b. Shuttle Coordination and Expansion (“Muni Partners”)

San Francisco Agency Partners: The proposed Integrated Public-Private TDM Partnership suite of innovative and coordinated TDM projects will be led by the Authority in collaboration with key City agencies:

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Authority) – The Authority is the congestion management agency (CMA) for San Francisco and administers the Prop K TDM program and the County Program Manager (40%) TFCA program.

San Francisco Department of the Environment (DOE) – DOE is the delegated regional ridesharing program administrator for San Francisco and administers Commuter Benefits and Emergency Ride Home programs, and Telecommute/Telework initiatives.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) – has responsibility for transit provision, parking, taxis, traffic management, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Recent policy work by the SFCTA has identified the need for more targeted shuttle sector management and coordination, in order to maximize the benefits and growth of private and non-profit sector shuttle provision, and to minimize the impacts of these operations.

San Francisco Planning Department (Planning) – oversees requirements for on-site TDM coordinators for large-scale development projects, requires new buildings in underserved areas to provide shuttles for employees. Planning regulates off-street parking provision and articulates City TDM policies through the General Plan.

Private Sector Partners: A number of private and non-profit organizations will collaborate with the partner agencies in exploring the value of focused TDM engagement, including:

121


Business Council on Climate Change (BC3)2: Co-sponsored by the Bay Area Council and created in 2007 following the UN Global Compact on Climate Change held in San Francisco, this organization’s mission is to serve as a resource for its members on reducing their green house gas emissionsBC3 is interested in partnering with the City agencies including issuing challenge grants parking cash out programs.

Downtown Shuttle Providers: Over a dozen private employers operate shuttles from downtown

BART stations, the Ferry building, and the Transbay terminal. The shuttles transport over 2,000 employees to sites all located within a two mile radius of downtown in over 80 hours of service and at an estimated cost of over $1.2 million. Only a few operate at full capacity. Each has indicated a willingness to reorganize into a more cooperative system which would improve existing levels of service; create greater capacity and more direct route choices; improve operating efficiencies; and achieve greater emissions reductions and alleviate unnecessary duplication of services.

Medical Institutions: Hospital network operators CPMC, UCSF and others (potentially Kaiser,

Veterans Affairs) are interested in further collaborating with one another on transit coordination, with SFMTA on area parking management, and with one another on coordinated ridesharing and possible shared shuttle operations.

Southwest Stakeholders: A preliminary group comprised of San Francisco State University, the

Stonestown Galleria, and developers of the planned 9,000 unit Parkmerced project, with BART, have expressed interest in collaborating with the City and one another on short- and longer-term TDM measures to improve travel options and overall circulation in the southwest part of the City. Potential additional partners in this group include the YMCA and Westlake shopping center.

The Project will implement, evaluate, and document a set of activities undertaken by each “TMA group” and through shuttle coordination and parking cashout TDM pilots. The Authority is procuring an on-call TDM consultant to assist with the implementation of this project

WORK PLAN

The Project is primarily funded by a $750,000 grant from the Bay Area Climate Initiatives (BACI) Program, an initiative of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Local match will be provided by agency in-kind contributions, TMA partner contributions, Prop K, and TFCA County Program Manager funds.

A detailed project budget and schedule is attached. Prop K funds will be used for Tasks 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 3.a The project budget includes $316,750 for work completed by consultant contract. For task orders associated with this project valued at under $75,000, the Authority may initiate task orders directly with an on-call contracted teams based on considerations of skills/capabilities, availability, and conflict of interest. For those task orders valued at greater than $75,000, the Authority will seek proposals from all on-call contracted teams and determine which firm to select.

2 Visit bc3sfbay.org. BC3 launched in 2007 with 27 members and one day later grew to 50 businesses. Today, the organization has over 100 dues-paying members, two-thirds of which are based in San Francisco.

122


TASK 1. POLICY COORDINATION AND GRANT MANAGEMENT

This task will assess current TDM policies and programs and develop a new, integrated approach for TDM programs and services within the City. This task also includes general coordination and grant management activities.

Task 1a – Review Existing Policies and Programs

The Study Team will review all existing City TDM policies, programs, and activities to identify current state of practice in local government involvement in TDM. The effort is expected to reveal that the City’s overall approach to influencing TDM implementation on the ground has been multi-faceted, yet fragmented. For instance, the Planning Department has been responsible for requiring new employment developments to implement certain TDM tools, while the Department of Environment has been responsible for encouraging adoption of TDM tools among existing employers. It is not always the case that the two departments are promoting and/or requiring the same set of tools, or that they are using the same approach to determining the appropriate set of tools in a particular case. Planning Department has also mandated shuttle operations by developments in under-served areas; yet shuttle sponsors need guidance from MTA about their operations.

The review will identify common TDM goals and objectives among agencies, needed adjustments for better inter-agency collaboration, and areas where more City involvement is needed to enhance on-the-ground TDM implementation. The review will also document best practices from elsewhere that could be introduced in San Francisco.

Schedule: Summer 2011

Subtasks/Deliverables:

• 1a.i – Individual Agency Interviews

• 1a.ii – Research/Document Agency Activities/Programs

• 1a.iii – Review/Comment/Revise

• 1a.iv – Final Documentation

Task 1b – Integrated TDM Strategy

Building on the findings from Task 1a, the partner agencies will define an overall coordinated City TDM Strategy improves the effectiveness and cohesiveness of City TDM programs and policies. This task will include a review of best practices from other jurisdictions and analysis of alternative options for San Francisco.

Longer-term institutional models and structures for governance and funding will be studied, for consideration by agencies and private sector stakeholders alike, in the post-BACI era. One option to be explored is a new TDM umbrella organization charged with carrying out the City TDM Strategy, with public and private sector membership. The organization would benefit from a membership-based funding stream, facilitate private-sector participation in TDM implementation via consolidation of administrative and management functions, and enable the City to be an aggregator of TDM-related funds and services. The organization would become the “one-stop shop” through which TMAs would interface, simplifying public-private coordination. For those employers and property managers that do not organize their own TMA, and in the short term, the City’s new, integrated TDM program would, in effect, act as their “TMA”.

123


Schedule: Fall 2011/Winter 2011-12


• 1b.i – Best Practices Review

• 1b.ii – Alternatives Analysis

• 1b.iii – Draft Recommendations

• 1b.iv – Review/Comment/Revise

• 1b.v – Final Documentation

• 1b.vi – Implementation Plan/Roadmap

Task 1.c – Coordination and Grant Management

The Authority will lead Project coordination among agencies and institutional/employer partners, with assistance from partner agencies. The Authority conduct overall project management including grant management.

Schedule: Ongoing throughout Project


• 1.c.i – General Coordination Needs

• 1.c.ii – Grant Management

TASK 2. NETWORK OF TMAs

A challenge for all major cities in doing TDM is how best to engage employers who are busy running their businesses and lack the time or know-how to engage directly with all the public sector actors that are responsible for TDM. In order to address this issue, the Study Team will create a flexible “Network of TMAs” (transportation management associations). While some groups may formalize a TMA relationship, others may find that collaboration does not require such arrangements. The aim of this task is to create a more efficient method of coordinating with and engaging companies/employers throughout the City by providing facilitation and technical assistance for three groups of employers (“TMAs”) and resources for these groupings to implement TDM projects/programs of mutual interest and benefit that will reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and associated emissions. Through this channel, the Project will fund the creation of “next-generation” (coordinated yet flexible) TMAs. (Currently, the city only has a few offical TMAs that have been mandated by Planning Department.) This would assist those who have already expressed interest in forming a TMA but are struggling with the up-front costs and complexities of doing so and incentivize collaborations in parts of town where there are existing and/or emerging needs associated with development.

Three geographical/functional areas for establishing potential TMAs have been identified as:

a. Downtown San Francisco Employers b. Major Medical Institutions c. West Side Organizations

124


The below table summarizes opportunities to be explored with each grouping.

Areas Integrated Public-Private TDM Opportunities Showplace Square, Mission Bay/China Basin/South Beach, Barbary Coast/Embarcadero

Consolidate up to 6 private shuttles in order to improve frequencies, transit connections and overall utilization.

Establish and promote multi-site car-sharing Develop and implement consistent parking policies and area-wide parking

management/cash out program Expand population served by shuttle by enrolling residential properties

and other businesses (who currently do not operate a shuttle) as contributing members

Promote ride-sharing, vanpooling and Emergency Ride Home Medical Institutions Improving multi-modal services and options in the first and last mile of

trips to and from transit hubs, including possibly linking major transit hubs (Caltrain, TransBay, BART) to outlying areas (i.e., Mt Zion, Kaiser, UCSF) not well served by MUNI or where MUNI is overcrowded at peak times. Also facilitating collaboration with Muni on “deadhead” trips back to these hubs by offering access to the general public to augment existing service.

Long-range route and service planning along the Van Ness Corridor to ensure the effectiveness and coordination of public and private transit as BRT evolves as well as the growth of these medical institutions.

Potentially sharing staff-commute TDM services (especially vanpooling, carsharing, and bikesharing) among institutions

Shared shuttle services Parkmerced, Stonestown Galleria Mall, and San Francisco State University

Bicycle promotion programs Coordinated shuttle provision to increase internalization of trips and

complement Muni service, including that to and from Daly City BART station

BART acceptance of Muni Fast Pass at Daly City to improve economic incentives of transit use for residents, students, and employees

For each grouping, the Study Team will partner with TMA participants to develop a workplan for each group with a prioritized list of public/private projects and implementation multiple projects over an approximately 2-year period with documentation and evaluation of these activities.

Within each grouping, specific TDM projects will be implemented to reduce single-occupancy commute trips. This will be a combination of shuttle services and coordinate provision/consolidation, as well as other TDM programs of interest, such as ridesharing, data coordination/mobility management, transit incentives, and non-motorized transportation promotion/support.

Schedule: 2012-2013


• 2.a.i – Outreach/Facilitation

• 2.a.ii – Technical Analysis/Plan Development

• 2.a.iii – Program Implementation

• 2.a.iv – Evaluation

125


TASK 3. PILOT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The Project will fund the implementation of the first tranche of pilots for innovative new TDM services and policies in the City. These entail parking cashout and shuttle coordination (“Muni Partners”).

Task 3.a – Parking Cashout

The state parking cashout statute requires certain employers who provide subsidized parking for their employees to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space. The state law affects only a limited number of employers, and there is interest at the policy-making level in increasing the use and enforcement of this policy tool to unbundle parking costs at employment sites. The TDM Partnership Project will develop and implement a parking cashout pilot project (to be applied at approximately three employer sites) that can inform development of citywide policy and respond to San Francisco’s unique context. This effort will seek to overcome practical implementation issues, such as developing the potential range of mechanisms by which businesses could offer the cashout incentive to employees and the management of “cashed-out” parking supply from overall supply (e.g. through withdrawal).

This task will entail the following activities: • Develop materials – that can be posted to CCSF websites and MTC’s 511.org site – that

explain how to offer parking cashout. This could include “making the business case” for cashout for a range of different employers such as explaining the financial savings the employer could experience (either by reducing their leasing requirements, or by selling or leasing spaces currently owned) and the environmental benefits it would afford.

• Develop a range of mechanisms through which businesses could offer the cashout incentive to employees who cashout a parking benefit, and the HR/administrative “best practices” for making these changes. Because a significant share of employers may not be subject to the State law, mechanisms may transfer a portion of the benefit value to be cashed out to the employee, leaving the remainder as a financial incentive to encourage employers to participate and provide benefits to all employees. These mechanisms could include:

o Subsidized transit passes (Clipper)

o “Pooling” cashed out value to provide collective workplace improvements (e.g. bicycle lockers/showers, secure bicycle parking, mobility management services)

o Providing value in cash

• Conduct Outreach and Implement Parking Cashout Program. DOE will team up with the nonprofit SF Bay Area Business Council on Climate Change (BC3) and other groups to reach out to San Francisco employers in San Francisco and create a database of interested employers. Program staff will meet with transportation managers and/or HR liaisons to identify the relevant existing conditions and opportunities. In order to encourage speedy implementation, the program will offer a one-time challenge grant for approximately three employers who offer cashout options to their employees. Support evaluation of the project.

Schedule: 2012-2013


• 3.a.i – Background Policy Review

• 3.a.ii – Technical Analysis/Alternatives Analysis

126


• 3.a.iii – Outreach/Facilitation

• 3.a.iv – Program Implementation

• 3.a.v – Evaluation

• 3.a.vi – Final Program Review and Coordination

Task 3.b – Muni Partners Program

The Authority’s Draft Strategic Analysis Report (SAR) on the Role of Shuttles recommends the development of a Muni Partners program at the SFMTA. This program will seek to better manage, regulate, coordinate, and leverage the operations of employment-focused shuttles operated by employers from outside of San Francisco who shuttle employees residing within San Francisco to job sites in the Peninsula/South Bay. The program may also work with intra-San Francisco shuttle operations. As the shuttle sector grows, there is need to develop policies and regulations to manage impacts to Muni operations and neighborhoods, and to leverage private investment in this arena in support of citywide and regional goals.

The project will fund the creation of a Muni Partners certification and management program at the SFMTA, with membership from the myriad employer-based, institutional, community, and commercial shuttle providers in the City. The Project will support a dedicated SFMTA point of contact who will interact with both the shuttle industry and members of the public, regarding shuttle operations. One of the key roles of this position will be to educate both the public and City departments about the role and importance of shuttles as an effective TDM measure. The functions of the proposed Muni Partners program coordinator would also include: providing operating guidelines to shuttle providers; increasing shuttle/traffic operations enforcement; developing and periodically reviewing/resetting program membership fee; and promoting and publicizing shuttle usage. A key focus of this Project element is to grow the private shuttle market in a more coherent and organized fashion, to leverage the high investment of resources from the private sector.

The Muni shuttle coordinator will deploy the Program, monitor operations, and meet regularly with shuttle sponsors and stakeholders to refine the program. Working with the partner agencies, the coordinator will conduct continual outreach with a goal of expanding shuttle services/ridership and identifying support for sustainable funding (e.g. from employer membership fee contributions).

Schedule: Fall 2011 – Spring 2013


• 3.b.i – Program Definition/Institutional Arrangements

• 3.b.ii – Technical Analysis/Shuttle Guidance

• 3.b.iii – Outreach and Marketing

• 3.b.iv – Program Launch and Implementation

• 3.b.v – Evaluation

• 3.b.vi – Transition Strategy

127


FY 2010/11

Project Name:




(mm/dd/yy)

Status:


1 2011/12 3 2011/12

Prepare Bid DocumentsN/A N/A

2 2011/12 N/A N/A





N/A



N/A








See detailed project schedule on next pages.

.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 2-Schedule :FY 10/11 Page 10 of 21

128

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

SCHE

DULE

(1 o

f 2)

Jul-1

1Au

g-11

Sep-

11Oc

t-11

Nov-

11De

c-11

Jan-

12Fe

b-12

Mar-1

2Ap

r-12

May-

12Ju

n-12

1. P

olicy

Coo

rdina

tion a

nd G

rant

Mana

geme

n ta.

Rev

iew E

xistin

g Poli

cies/P

rogr

ams

i. In

dividu

al Ag

ency

Inter

views

ii. R

esea

rch/D

ocum

ent A

genc

y Acti

vities

/Pro

gram

siii.

Rev

iew/C

omme

nt/Re

vise

iv. F

inal D

ocum

entat

ion

b. In

tegra

ted T

DM S

trateg

yi.

Best

Prac

tices

Rev

iewii.

Alte

rnati

ves A

nalys

isiii.

Dra

ft Rec

omme

ndati

ons

iv. R

eview

/Com

ment/

Revis

ev.

Fina

l Doc

umen

tation

vi. Im

pleme

ntatio

n Plan

/Roa

dmap

c. Co

ordin

ation

& G

rant

Mana

geme

nti.

Gene

ral C

oord

inatio

n Nee

dsii.

Gra

nt Ma

nage

ment

2. N

etwor

k of T

MAs

a. D

ownto

wn, W

est S

ide, M

edica

l Insti

tution

si.

Outre

ach/F

acilit

ation

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Pl

an D

evelo

pmen

tiii.

Pro

gram

Imple

menta

tion

iv. E

valua

tion

3. P

ilot P

rojec

tsa.

Par

king C

asho

uti.

Back

grou

nd P

olicy

Rev

iewii.

Tec

hnica

l Ana

lysis/

Alter

nativ

es A

nalys

isiii.

Outr

each

/Fac

ilitati

oniv.

Pro

gram

Imple

menta

tion

v. E

valua

tion

vi. F

inal P

rogr

am R

eview

and C

oord

inatio

n

b. M

uni P

artne

rs Pr

ogra

mi.

Prog

ram

Defin

ition/I

nstitu

tiona

l Arra

ngem

ents

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Sh

uttle

Guida

nce

iii. O

utrea

ch an

d Mar

ketin

giv.

Pro

gram

Laun

ch an

d Imp

lemen

tation

v. E

valua

tion

vi. T

rans

ition S

trateg

y

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\S

FCTA

TD

M P

artn

ersh

ip, 2

a-Sc

hedu

le :F

Y 10

/11

Page

11

of 2

1

129

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

SCHE

DULE

(2 o

f 2)

Jul-1

2Au

g-12

Sep-

12Oc

t-12

Nov-

12De

c-12

Jan-

13Fe

b-13

Mar-1

3Ap

r-13

May-

13Ju

n-13

1. P

olicy

Coo

rdina

tion a

nd G

rant

Mana

geme

n ta.

Rev

iew E

xistin

g Poli

cies/P

rogr

ams

i. In

dividu

al Ag

ency

Inter

views

ii. R

esea

rch/D

ocum

ent A

genc

y Acti

vities

/Pro

gram

siii.

Rev

iew/C

omme

nt/Re

vise

iv. F

inal D

ocum

entat

ion

b. In

tegra

ted T

DM S

trateg

yi.

Best

Prac

tices

Rev

iewii.

Alte

rnati

ves A

nalys

isiii.

Dra

ft Rec

omme

ndati

ons

iv. R

eview

/Com

ment/

Revis

ev.

Fina

l Doc

umen

tation

vi. Im

pleme

ntatio

n Plan

/Roa

dmap

c. Co

ordin

ation

& G

rant

Mana

geme

nti.

Gene

ral C

oord

inatio

n Nee

dsii.

Gra

nt Ma

nage

ment

2. N

etwor

k of T

MAs

a. D

ownto

wn, W

est S

ide, M

edica

l Insti

tution

si.

Outre

ach/F

acilit

ation

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Pl

an D

evelo

pmen

tiii.

Pro

gram

Imple

menta

tion

iv. E

valua

tion

3. P

ilot P

rojec

tsa.

Par

king C

asho

uti.

Back

grou

nd P

olicy

Rev

iewii.

Tec

hnica

l Ana

lysis/

Alter

nativ

es A

nalys

isiii.

Outr

each

/Fac

ilitati

oniv.

Pro

gram

Imple

menta

tion

v. E

valua

tion

vi. F

inal P

rogr

am R

eview

and C

oord

inatio

n

b. M

uni P

artne

rs Pr

ogra

mi.

Prog

ram

Defin

ition/I

nstitu

tiona

l Arra

ngem

ents

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Sh

uttle

Guida

nce

iii. O

utrea

ch an

d Mar

ketin

giv.

Pro

gram

Laun

ch an

d Imp

lemen

tation

v. E

valua

tion

vi. T

rans

ition S

trateg

y

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\S

FCTA

TD

M P

artn

ersh

ip, 2

a-Sc

hedu

le :F

Y 10

/11

Page

12

of 2

1

130


FY 2010/11

Project Name:




Yes/No Total CostYes

Yes


Total Cost Source of Cost Estimate$192,928

$831,950

$1,024,878 Expected Useful Life: n/a Years Enter expected useful life of completed capital

project (e.g., use audit number).

$1,024,878 $78,866




$831,950

$41,564

$37,302



$192,928








Total:

Authority/City Estimate

Authority Estimate, based on prior work



P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 3-Cost :FY 10/11 Page 13 of 21

131

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

DOE

Plan

ning

Budg

et b

y Tas

kDD

TPDD

PMSt

affSt

affCo

nsult

ant

Hour

ly Ra

tes

$164

$104

Cost

$142

$125

Cost

$131

Cost

$130

Cost

$125

Cost

Dire

ct C

osts

Tota

l1.

Poli

cy C

oord

inatio

n and

Gra

nt Ma

nage

ment

a. R

eview

Exis

ting P

olicie

s/Pro

gram

si.

Indiv

idual

Agen

cy In

tervie

ws8

82,1

44$

8

82,1

36$

12

1,572

$

243,1

20$

8,972

$

40

5,000

$

-

$

13,97

2$

ii. R

esea

rch/D

ocum

ent A

genc

y Acti

vities

/Pro

gram

s8

243,8

08$

4

162,5

68$

32

4,192

$

405,2

00$

15,76

8$

60

7,500

$

-

$

23,26

8$

iii. R

eview

/Com

ment/

Revis

e16

245,1

20$

8

325,1

36$

32

4,192

$

243,1

20$

17,56

8$

40

5,000

$

-

$

22,56

8$

iv. F

inal D

ocum

entat

ion16

164,2

88$

8

244,1

36$

32

4,192

$

405,2

00$

17,81

6$

32

4,000

$

-

$

21,81

6$

FTE

Equiv

alent

(Acr

oss 2

-Yea

rs, b

y Pha

se)

0.02

0.03

15,36

0$

0.

010.

0413

,976

$

0.05

14,14

8$

0.06

16,64

0$

60

,124

$

21,50

0$

-

$

81,62

4$

b. In

tegra

ted T

DM S

trateg

yi.

Best

Prac

tices

Rev

ie w4

121,9

04$

4

41,0

68$

8

1,048

$

162,0

80$

6,100

$

32

4,000

$

-

$

10,10

0$

ii. A

ltern

ative

s Ana

lysis

416

2,320

$

48

1,568

$

81,0

48$

24

3,120

$

8,0

56$

607,5

00$

-$

15

,556

$

iii.

Dra

ft Rec

omme

ndati

ons

412

1,904

$

44

1,068

$

243,1

44$

24

3,120

$

9,2

36$

405,0

00$

-$

14

,236

$

iv.

Rev

iew/C

omme

nt/Re

vise

824

3,808

$

424

3,568

$

243,1

44$

8

1,040

$

11

,560

$

405,0

00$

-$

16

,560

$

v.

Fina

l Doc

umen

tation

816

2,976

$

48

1,568

$

162,0

96$

4

520

$

7,160

$

40

5,000

$

-

$

12,16

0$

vi. Im

pleme

ntatio

n Plan

/Roa

dmap

816

2,976

$

416

2,568

$

81,0

48$

4

520

$

7,112

$

40

5,000

$

-

$

12,11

2$

FTE

Equiv

alent

(Acr

oss 2

-Yea

rs, b

y Pha

se)

0.02

0.05

15,88

8$

0.

010.

0311

,408

$

0.04

11,52

8$

0.04

10,40

0$

49

,224

$

31,50

0$

-

$

80,72

4$

c. Co

ordin

ation

& G

rant

Mana

geme

nti.

Gene

ral C

oord

inatio

n Nee

ds8

243,8

08$

8

163,1

36$

16

2,096

$

162,0

80$

11,12

0$

-

$

-$

11

,120

$

ii.

Gra

nt Ma

nage

ment

1060

7,880

$

030

3,750

$

303,9

30$

30

3,900

$

19

,460

$

-$

-

$

19,46

0$

FTE

Equiv

alent

(Acr

oss 2

-Yea

rs, b

y Pha

se)

0.01

0.04

11,68

8$

0.

000.

026,8

86$

0.

026,0

26$

0.

025,9

80$

30,58

0$

-

$

-$

30

,580

$

2. N

etwor

k of T

MAs

a. D

ownto

wn, W

est S

ide, M

edica

l Insti

tution

si.

Outre

ach/F

acilit

ation

1660

8,864

$

1675

11,64

7$

75

9,825

$

324,1

60$

34,49

6$

25

031

,250

$

20,00

0$

85

,746

$

ii.

Tec

hnica

l Ana

lysis/

Plan

Dev

elopm

ent

1660

8,864

$

1250

7,954

$

506,5

50$

75

9,750

$

33

,118

$

250

31,25

0$

-

$

64,36

8$

iii. P

rogr

am Im

pleme

ntatio

n16

7510

,424

$

2010

015

,340

$

506,5

50$

40

5,200

$

37

,514

$

500

62,50

0$

85

,000

$

185,0

14$

iv.

Eva

luatio

n12

406,1

28$

12

406,7

04$

50

6,550

$

405,2

00$

24,58

2$

20

025

,000

$

-$

49

,582

$

FT

E Eq

uivale

nt (A

cros

s 2-Y

ears

, by P

hase

)0.

030.

1134

,280

$

0.03

0.13

41,64

5$

0.

1129

,475

$

0.

0924

,310

$

129,7

10$

15

0,000

$

105,0

00$

38

4,710

$

3. P

ilot P

rojec

tsa.

Par

king C

asho

uti.

Back

grou

nd P

olicy

Rev

iew4

202,7

36$

4

162,5

68$

16

2,096

$

405,2

00$

12,60

0$

60

7,500

$

-

$

20,10

0$

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Al

terna

tives

Ana

lysis

440

4,816

$

832

5,136

$

324,1

92$

40

5,200

$

19

,344

$

607,5

00$

-$

26

,844

$

iii.

Outr

each

/Fac

ilitati

on4

243,1

52$

4

243,5

68$

32

4,192

$

81,0

40$

11,95

2$

40

5,000

$

5,0

00$

21,95

2$

iv. P

rogr

am Im

pleme

ntatio

n8

324,6

40$

4

243,5

68$

32

4,192

$

324,1

60$

16,56

0$

40

5,000

$

40

,000

$

61,56

0$

v. E

valua

tion

48

1,488

$

424

3,568

$

162,0

96$

8

1,040

$

8,1

92$

405,0

00$

-$

13

,192

$

vi.

Fina

l Pro

gram

Rev

iew an

d Coo

rdina

tion

832

4,640

$

416

2,568

$

162,0

96$

24

3,120

$

12

,424

$

405,0

00$

-$

17

,424

$

FT

E Eq

uivale

nt (A

cros

s 2-Y

ears

, by P

hase

)0.

020.

0821

,472

$

0.01

0.07

20,97

6$

0.

0718

,864

$

0.

0719

,760

$

81,07

2$

35

,000

$

45,00

0$

16

1,072

$

b. M

uni P

artne

rs Pr

ogra

mi.

Prog

ram

Defin

ition/I

nstitu

tiona

l Arra

ngem

ents

412

1,904

$

1232

5,704

$

81,0

48$

24

3,120

$

11

,776

$

8010

,000

$

-$

21

,776

$

ii.

Tec

hnica

l Ana

lysis/

Shutt

le Gu

idanc

e2

242,8

24$

12

8011

,704

$

452

4$

162,0

80$

17,13

2$

20

025

,000

$

-$

42

,132

$

iii.

Outr

each

and M

arke

ting

28

1,160

$

840

6,136

$

243,1

44$

0

-$

10

,440

$

405,0

00$

5,000

$

20

,440

$

iv.

Pro

gram

Laun

ch an

d Imp

lemen

tation

224

2,824

$

7580

011

0,650

$

8

1,048

$

81,0

40$

115,5

62$

15

018

,750

$

20,00

0$

15

4,312

$

v. E

valua

tion

28

1,160

$

860

8,636

$

81,0

48$

8

1,040

$

11

,884

$

8010

,000

$

-$

21

,884

$

vi.

Tra

nsitio

n Stra

tegy

424

3,152

$

2460

10,90

8$

4

524

$

8

1,040

$

15

,624

$

8010

,000

$

-$

25

,624

$

FT

E Eq

uivale

nt (A

cros

s 2-Y

ears

, by P

hase

)0.

010.

0513

,024

$

0.07

0.52

153,7

38$

0.03

7,336

$

0.03

8,320

$

18

2,418

$

78,75

0$

25

,000

$

286,1

68$

Total

s15

063

111

1,712

$

24

715

6724

8,629

$

51

987

,377

$

46

585

,410

$

533,1

28$

22

3031

6,750

$

175,0

00$

1,0

24,87

8$

FT

E Eq

uivale

nt (A

cros

s 2-Y

ears

)0.

070.

300.

120.

750.

250.

22

Agen

cy S

taff

Total

MA

JOR

LIN

E I

TE

M B

UD

GE

T

SFCT

ASF

MTA

1. P

rovi

de a

majo

r lin

e ite

m b

udge

t, w

ith su

btot

als b

y ph

ase.

Mor

e de

tail

is re

quire

d th

e fa

rther

alo

ng th

e pr

ojec

t is i

n th

e de

velo

pmen

t pha

se.

Plan

ning

stud

ies sh

ould

pro

vide

task

-leve

l bud

get i

nfor

mat

ion.

2.

Req

uest

s for

pro

ject d

evelo

pmen

t sho

uld

inclu

de p

relim

inar

y es

timat

es fo

r lat

er p

hase

s suc

h as

con

stru

ctio

n.

3. S

uppo

rt co

sts a

nd c

ontin

genc

ies sh

ould

be

calle

d ou

t in

each

pha

se, a

s app

ropr

iate.

Pro

vide

bot

h do

llar a

mou

nts a

nd %

(e.g

. % o

f con

stru

ctio

n) fo

r sup

port

cost

s and

con

tinge

ncies

. 4.

For

wor

k to

be

perf

orm

ed b

y ag

ency

staf

f rat

her t

han

cons

ulta

nts,

prov

ide

base

rate

, ove

rhea

d m

ultip

lier,

and

fully

bur

dene

d ra

tes b

y po

sitio

n w

ith F

TE (f

ull-t

ime

equi

valen

t) ra

tio.

A sa

mpl

e fo

rmat

is p

rovi

ded

belo

w.

5. F

or c

onst

ruct

ion

cost

s, pl

ease

inclu

de b

udge

t det

ails.

A sa

mpl

e fo

rmat

is p

rovi

ded

belo

w.

Plea

se n

ote

if w

ork

will

be

perfo

rmed

thro

ugh

a co

ntra

ct.

6. F

or a

ny c

ontra

ct w

ork,

plea

se p

rovi

de th

e LB

E/S

BE/D

BE g

oals

as a

pplic

able

to th

e co

ntra

ct.

Cons

ultan

ts

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\S

FCTA

TD

M P

artn

ersh

ip, 4

-Maj

or L

ine

Item

Bud

get :

FY 1

0/11

Page

14

of 2

1

132

San

Fra

nci

sco

Cou

nty

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Au

thor

ity

Pro

pos

itio

n K

Sal

es T

ax P

rogr

am A

lloca

tion

Req

ues

t F

orm

FUND

ING

PLAN

Total

Cos

tBA

CI G

rant

Shar

eMa

tch (a

ll)Ag

ency

In-K

ind (a

ll)SF

CTA

In-Ki

ndSF

MTA

In-Ki

ndDO

E In-

Kind

Plan

ning I

n-Ki

ndTM

A Pa

rtner

Co

ntribu

tion

Prop

K

Othe

r Loc

al Ca

sh M

atch

(TFC

A)Pr

op K

Cas

h Ma

tch S

hare

73.18

%26

.82%

7.28%

7000

1. P

olicy

Coo

rdina

tion a

nd G

rant

Mana

geme

nta.

Rev

iew E

xistin

g Poli

cies/P

rogr

ams

i. In

dividu

al Ag

ency

Inter

views

13,97

2$

10

,224

$

3,7

48$

65

3$

156

$

155

$

11

4$

227

$

-

$

3,0

95$

-$

10

0%ii.

Res

earch

/Doc

umen

t Age

ncy A

ctivit

ies/P

rogr

ams

23,26

8$

17

,027

$

6,2

41$

1,1

48$

27

7$

18

7$

305

$

37

8$

-$

5,093

$

-

$

100%

iii. R

eview

/Com

ment/

Revis

e22

,568

$

16,51

5$

6,053

$

1,279

$

373

$

374

$

30

5$

227

$

-

$

4,7

75$

-$

10

0%iv.

Fina

l Doc

umen

tation

21,81

6$

15

,964

$

5,8

52$

1,2

97$

31

2$

30

1$

305

$

37

8$

-$

4,555

$

-

$

100%

b. In

tegra

ted T

DM S

trateg

yi.

Best

Prac

tices

Rev

iew10

,100

$

7,391

$

2,709

$

444

$

13

9$

78

$

76

$

151

$

-

$

2,2

65$

-$

10

0%ii.

Alte

rnati

ves A

nalys

i s15

,556

$

11,38

4$

4,172

$

586

$

16

9$

11

4$

76$

22

7$

-$

3,586

$

-

$

100%

iii. D

raft R

ecom

mend

ation

s14

,236

$

10,41

8$

3,818

$

672

$

13

9$

78

$

22

9$

227

$

-

$

3,1

46$

-$

10

0%iv.

Rev

iew/C

omme

nt/Re

vise

16,56

0$

12

,118

$

4,4

42$

84

1$

277

$

260

$

22

9$

76$

-$

3,600

$

-

$

100%

v. F

inal D

ocum

entat

ion12

,160

$

8,898

$

3,262

$

521

$

21

7$

11

4$

153

$

38

$

-

$

2,7

40$

-$

10

0%vi.

Imple

menta

tion P

lan/R

oadm

ap12

,112

$

8,863

$

3,249

$

518

$

21

7$

18

7$

76$

38

$

-

$

2,7

31$

-$

10

0%

c. Co

ordin

ation

& G

rant

Mana

geme

nti.

Gene

ral C

oord

inatio

n Nee

ds11

,120

$

8,137

$

2,983

$

809

$

27

7$

22

8$

153

$

15

1$

-$

2,173

$

-

$

100%

ii. G

rant

Mana

geme

nt19

,460

$

14,24

0$

5,220

$

1,416

$

573

$

273

$

28

6$

284

$

-

$

3,8

03$

-$

10

0%

2. N

etwor

k of T

MAs

a. D

ownto

wn, W

est S

ide, M

edica

l Insti

tution

si.

Outre

ach/F

acilit

ation

85,74

6$

62

,747

$

22

,999

$

2,511

$

645

$

848

$

71

5$

303

$

-

$

-

$

20,48

8$

0%

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Pl

an D

evelo

pmen

t64

,368

$

47,10

3$

17,26

5$

2,4

10$

64

5$

57

9$

477

$

71

0$

-$

-$

14

,855

$

0%iii.

Pro

gram

Imple

menta

tion

185,0

14$

13

5,389

$

49

,625

$

2,730

$

759

$

1,116

$

477

$

37

8$

7,000

$

-$

39

,894

$

0%iv.

Eva

luatio

n and

Doc

umen

tation

49,58

2$

36

,283

$

13

,299

$

1,789

$

446

$

488

$

47

7$

378

$

-

$

-

$

11,51

0$

0%

3. P

ilot P

rojec

tsa.

Par

king C

asho

uti.

Back

grou

nd P

olicy

Rev

iew20

,100

$

14,70

9$

5,391

$

917

$

19

9$

18

7$

153

$

37

8$

-$

4,474

$

-

$

100%

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Al

terna

tives

Ana

lysi s

26,84

4$

19

,644

$

7,2

00$

1,4

08$

35

0$

37

4$

305

$

37

8$

-$

5,792

$

-

$

100%

iii. O

utrea

ch/F

acilit

ation

21,95

2$

16

,064

$

5,8

88$

87

0$

229

$

260

$

30

5$

76$

-$

5,018

$

-

$

100%

iv. P

rogr

am Im

pleme

ntatio

n61

,560

$

45,04

8$

16,51

2$

1,2

05$

33

8$

26

0$

305

$

30

3$

-$

15,30

6$

-

$

100%

v. E

valua

tion

13,19

2$

9,6

54$

3,5

38$

59

6$

108

$

260

$

15

3$

76$

-$

2,942

$

-

$

100%

vi. F

inal P

rogr

am R

eview

and D

ocum

entat

ion17

,424

$

12,75

1$

4,673

$

904

$

33

8$

18

7$

153

$

22

7$

-$

3,769

$

-

$

100%

b. M

uni P

artne

rs Pr

ogra

mi.

Prog

ram

Defin

ition/I

nstitu

tiona

l Arra

ngem

ents

21,77

6$

15

,935

$

5,8

41$

85

7$

139

$

415

$

76

$

227

$

-

$

-

$

4,984

$

0%

ii. T

echn

ical A

nalys

is/Sh

uttle

Guida

nce

42,13

2$

30

,831

$

11

,301

$

1,247

$

206

$

852

$

38

$

151

$

-

$

-

$

10,05

4$

0%

iii. O

utrea

ch an

d Mar

ketin

g20

,440

$

14,95

8$

5,482

$

760

$

84

$

447

$

22

9$

-$

-$

-$

4,7

23$

0%iv.

Pro

gram

Laun

ch an

d Imp

lemen

tation

154,3

12$

11

2,922

$

41

,390

$

8,410

$

206

$

8,053

$

76$

76

$

-

$

-

$

32,97

9$

0%

v. E

valua

tion

21,88

4$

16

,014

$

5,8

70$

86

5$

84$

62

9$

76$

76

$

-

$

-

$

5,005

$

0%

vi. T

rans

ition S

trateg

y and

Doc

umen

tation

25,62

4$

18

,751

$

6,8

73$

1,1

37$

22

9$

79

4$

38$

76

$

-

$

-

$

5,736

$

0%

Total

s1,0

24,87

8$

749,9

84$

274,8

94$

38,80

0$

8,130

$

18

,095

$

6,359

$

6,2

16$

7,0

00$

78

,866

$

150,2

28$

34

%

Cons

tructi

on

Cons

tructi

on

Cons

tructi

on

Phas

e

Plan

ning

Plan

ning

Plan

ning

P:\P

rop

K\FY

1112

\ARF

Fin

al\S

FCTA

TD

M P

artn

ersh

ip, 4

-Maj

or L

ine

Item

Bud

get :

FY 1

0/11

Page

15

of 2

1

133


FY

Project Name:






Programmed

$0

Actual Leveraging - This Phase:Expected Leveraging per Expenditure Plan Total from Cost worksheet54.33%

TMA Partners Contribution

Total:

$1,024,878


$749,984$78,866

$0


$150,228

$7,000$0

$38,800$7,000

Fund Source

$1,048,100

$1,024,878


Prop K Sales Tax

Agency In-Kind MatchTFCA County Program Manager FundsBay Area Climate Initiative Grant


$749,984

$274,894

92.30%

$749,984


2010/11

$150,228

$78,866

$38,800

$78,866

This project is not included in the 5YPP for Transportation Demand Management/Parking Management. To fund the project, SFCTA has proposed a 5YPP amendment to reprogram $50,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 10/11 and $28,866 in Fiscal Year 11/12 funds from the undesignated line to the Integrated TDM Public-Private Partnership Project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details. The Strategic Plan amount is the Fiscal Year 2011/12 amount for the entire Transportation Demand Management/Parking Management category, including $348,100 Fiscal Year 2011/12 funds and $600,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2009/10 funds and $100,000 in unallocated Fiscal Year 2010/11 funds.

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 16 of 21

134



%

26.82%


Programmed

$0





Annually

63.00%37.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Total:

FY 2012/13

$0.00

AllocatedPlanned

Fiscal Year

Total:


$1,024,878

$0 $0

Fund Source

Bay Area Climate Initiative GrantFund Source


$$274,870.18

Total


FY 2011/12

92.30%

$78,866

$0$50,000$28,866

$0

$0

Balance

$78,866

54.33%

Cash Flow

$0$0

$28,866

$ Amount

$750,000

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 5-Funding :FY 10/11 Page 17 of 21

135




Project Name:


Prop K Recommended: AppropriationAppropriation

Total:


Line%

Reimbursable

43 63.00%43 37.00% 0.00% 0.00%

0.00%100%



Reimbursement

43 FY 2011/12 $41,56443 FY 2011/12 $8,43643 FY 2012/13 $28,866

$78,866


Total: $78,866

3/31/2014

63%

$50,000

Fiscal Year

A multi-phase appropriation for planning and construction (implementation) is appropriate given the concurrent nature of the work.

Balance

53%

$0

$28,866$37,302

$0

$78,866

100%

100%

$28,866Balance


Amount$41,564

$28,866FY 2011/12

$78,866

$37,302



Total:


$78,866

$50,000

$0

FY 2012/13


$78,866


ConstructionPlanning/Conceptual Engineering

ConstructionConstruction

100%


P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 6-Authority Rec :FY 10/11 Page 18 of 21

136




Project Name:






Trigger:

Deliverables:1.

2.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


Quarterly progress reports shall provide a percent complete by task, percent complete for the overall project scope, a listing of completed deliverables, and an update on DBE and LBE utilization to date and project goals.

Upon completion of Task 3.b (Muni Partners Program) (anticipated July 15, 2012), provide a copy of the evaluation and transition strategy.

Amount

Upon completion of Task 1.b (Integrated TDM Strategy) (anticipated April 15, 2012), provide a copy of the final documentation and implementation plan.

Upon completion of Task 1.a (Review Existing Policies and Programs) (anticipated January 15, 2012), provide a copy of the final documentation.

Executed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Authority, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco Planning Department, and the San Francisco Department of the Environment (anticipated July 1, 2011) that outlines the project scope of work and responsibilities of each agency for each task.

The recommended appropriation is contingent upon a 5YPP amendment to reprogram a total of $50,000 in Fiscal Year 10/11 and $28,866 in unallocated Fiscal Year 11/12 funds from the undesignated line in the Transportation Demand Management/Parking Management category to the (new) subject project. See attached 5YPP amendment for details.

Upon completion of Task 3.a.ii (Parking Cashout) (anticipated April 15, 2012), provide a copy of the technical analysis/alternatives analysis.

Upon completion of Task 3.a (Parking Cashout) (anticipated July 15, 2013), provide a copy of the evaluation and final program review.

Upon completion of Task 3.b.ii (Muni Partners Program) (anticipated July 15, 2012), provide a copy of the technical analysis.

Upon completion of Task 2.a (Network of TMAs) (anticipated July 15, 2013), provide a copy of the final documentation and implementation plan.


137




Project Name:




San Francisco County Transportation AuthorityNotes:

1.

2.

3.

Supervisorial District(s): Citywide 7.70%




The Integrated TDM Public-Private Partnership Project is included in the Authority's staff recommendation for the Fiscal Year 2011/12 TFCA County Program Manager Fund program of projects. The staff recommendation includes $150,228 in TFCA funds and is scheduled for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee in June.

The Authority will execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the partnering agencies (See Deliverable #2). The MOU will clarify the reimbursement of overhead rates, if any.

Authority received Authorization to Proceed (i.e., E-76) for the BACI grant from Caltrans on April 27, 2011 (effective date of April 24, 2011). The E-76 allows the Authority to incur BACI and Prop K eligible expenses for the project.


138



Project Name:


Signatures


Name (typed):

Title:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Address:San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

Signature:

Date:


$78,866

100 Van Ness Ave, 26th Floor

Chad Rathmann

Transportation Planner

415.522.4800

415.522.4829

[email protected]

100 Van Ness Ave, 26th Floor

Transportation Planner

415.522.4800

[email protected]


Jesse Koehler


415.522.4829

P:\Prop K\FY1112\ARF Final\SFCTA TDM Partnership, 8-Signatures :FY 10/11 Page 21 of 21

139

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

DO

EBi

cycle

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

0,00

0$1

0,00

0

DO

EBi

cycle

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

8,00

0$1

8,00

0

DO

EBi

cycle

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$20,

000

$20,

000

DO

EBi

cycle

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$20,

000

$20,

000

DO

EBi

cycle

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$20,

000

$20,

000

DO

ECo

mm

uter

Ben

efits

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

19,7

90$1

19,7

90

DO

ECo

mm

uter

Ben

efits

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$1

20,1

00$1

20,1

00

DO

ECo

mm

uter

Ben

efits

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$125

,100

$125

,100

DO

ECo

mm

uter

Ben

efits

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$125

,100

$125

,100

DO

ECo

mm

uter

Ben

efits

Pro

gram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$130

,100

$130

,100

DO

EE

mer

genc

y Ri

de H

ome

Prog

ram

(C

lean

Air

Prog

ram

)CO

NA

lloca

ted

$13,

310

$13,

310

DO

EE

mer

genc

y Ri

de H

ome

Prog

ram

(C

lean

Air

Prog

ram

)CO

NA

lloca

ted

$15,

000

$15,

000

DO

EE

mer

genc

y Ri

de H

ome

Prog

ram

(C

lean

Air

Prog

ram

)CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

8,00

0$1

8,00

0

DO

EE

mer

genc

y Ri

de H

ome

Prog

ram

(C

lean

Air

Prog

ram

)CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$1

8,00

0$1

8,00

0

DO

EE

mer

genc

y Ri

de H

ome

Prog

ram

(C

lean

Air

Prog

ram

)CO

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$2

0,00

0$2

0,00

0

DO

ERe

gion

al Ri

desh

are

Prog

ram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$3

5,00

0$3

5,00

0

Tota

lPh

ase

Stat

usA

genc

y

City

wid

e TD

M

Fisc

al Y

ear

Proj

ect N

ame

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Dem

and

Man

agem

ent/

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t (E

P 4

3)

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

3 T

ab: E

P 43

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 1

of 3

140

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Tota

lPh

ase

Stat

usA

genc

yFi

scal

Yea

rPr

ojec

t Nam

e

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Dem

and

Man

agem

ent/

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t (E

P 4

3)

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

DO

ERe

gion

al Ri

desh

are

Prog

ram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Allo

cate

d$3

5,00

0$3

5,00

0

DO

ERe

gion

al Ri

desh

are

Prog

ram

(Clea

n A

ir Pr

ogra

m)

CON

Prog

ram

med

$35,

000

$35,

000

SFCT

A

Inte

grat

ed T

rave

l Dem

and

Man

agem

ent P

ublic

-Priv

ate

Partn

ersh

ip P

rojec

t1PL

AN

/CE

RPe

ndin

g$7

8,86

6$7

8,86

6

SFM

TA

Long

Ran

ge R

ail S

yste

m P

lan o

r oth

er

Elig

ible

Coun

tyw

ide

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an F

ollo

w-u

p St

udy

PLA

NPr

ogra

mm

ed$3

00,0

00$3

00,0

00

SFCT

ACo

nges

tion

Prici

ng E

valu

atio

n an

d D

esig

nPL

AN

/CE

RPr

ogra

mm

ed$6

00,0

00$6

00,0

00

SFCT

ACo

nges

tion

Prici

ng C

oord

inat

ion

Plan

s and

Stu

dies

PLA

N/C

ER

Prog

ram

med

$100

,000

$100

,000

Any

E

ligib

leU

ndes

igna

ted1

0Pr

ogra

mm

ed$0

$0A

ny

Elig

ible

Und

esig

nate

d10

Prog

ram

med

$71,

134

$71,

134

Any

E

ligib

leU

ndes

igna

ted

0Pr

ogra

mm

ed$1

00,0

00$1

00,0

00A

ny

Elig

ible

Und

esig

nate

d0

Prog

ram

med

$100

,000

$100

,000

Und

esig

nate

d

Prici

ng a

nd P

arki

ng M

anag

emen

t

Mod

al Pl

ans

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

3 T

ab: E

P 43

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 2

of 3

141

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

Tota

lPh

ase

Stat

usA

genc

yFi

scal

Yea

rPr

ojec

t Nam

e

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Dem

and

Man

agem

ent/

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t (E

P 4

3)

Pro

gram

min

g an

d A

lloca

tion

s T

o-d

ate

2009

Pro

p K

5Y

PP

- P

rogr

am o

f P

roje

cts

Am

endm

ent f

or 0

6.28

.11

Boar

d A

ppro

val

$778

,100

$2

88,1

00

$348

,100

$5

63,1

00

$270

,100

$2

,247

,500

$178

,100

$1

88,1

00

$78,

866

$0

$0

$445

,066

$6

00,0

00

$100

,000

$2

69,2

34

$563

,100

$2

70,1

00

$1,8

02,4

34

$778

,100

$3

38,1

00

$298

,100

$5

63,1

00

$270

,100

$2

,247

,500

$0

$5

0,00

0 $0

$0

$0

$0

* Th

e 20

09 S

trate

gic

Plan

was

am

ende

d on

Mar

ch 3

0, 2

010

thro

ugh

Res.

10-5

2.

FO

OT

NO

TE

S:

1 5Y

PP a

men

dmen

t to

add

$78,

886

for t

he In

tegr

ated

Tra

vel D

eman

d M

anag

emen

t (TD

M) P

ublic

-Priv

ate

Partn

ersh

ip P

rojec

t (Re

solu

tion

XX

-XX

, XX

.XX

.XX

XX

).In

tegr

ated

TD

M P

ublic

-Priv

ate

Partn

ersh

ip P

rojec

t: A

dded

new

pro

ject.

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

010/

11 U

ndes

igna

ted:

Red

uced

pro

gram

min

g fr

om $

50,0

00 to

$0.

Fi

scal

Yea

r 201

1/12

Und

esig

nate

d: R

educ

ed p

rogr

amm

ing

from

$10

0,00

0 to

$71

,134

.

Pend

ing

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Boar

d A

ppro

ved

Allo

catio

n/A

ppro

priat

ion

Prog

ram

med

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

emai

nin

g P

rogr

amm

ing

Cap

acit

y

Tot

al U

nal

loca

ted

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

Am

end

ed 2

009

Stra

tegi

c P

lan

*

Tot

al P

rogr

amm

ed in

5Y

PP

Tot

al A

lloca

ted

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

09 L

ivin

g\5Y

PP A

men

ded\

EP 4

3 T

ab: E

P 43

5YP

P 06

.28.

11Pa

ge 3

of 3

142