Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 20, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT

1:30 pm
have to familiarize myself with the fee program, but usually there is a verification, and it is something that would be expanded again through legislation that could be modified to include additional things. i would remind the committee that whenever we have a nexus feethere needs to be a connecti. in connection demonstrated between the impact of a particular project and the program to which the fee revenues would be put. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, we have items four, five, and six before us.
1:31 pm
my understanding is it is not noticed for that. without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone. can you please call item 7 and 8 together on the local hiring mou is san the teddy upcounty and the tolling agreement? >> the memorandum of understanding with san may take no county regarding local hiring for construction contracts. item eight, approving a tolling agreement with san mateo county. supervisor mar: thank you. we have a member of the office of oewd. >> i am from the office of economic and workforce development. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. our office is pleased that after about two months of conversations with our colleagues in san mateo county,
1:32 pm
that we have been able to enter into a reciprocity agreement for our local mandatory hiring program. the mou that is before you pour consideration is essentially expands the definition of -- that is before you act essentially expands the definition of projects to include residents of san mateo county, as well as san francisco residents, for that work. our current program for projects only in san mateo county, a contractor would be able to poll workers from either san francisco or san mateo county to meet the mandatory requirement. that is is essentially the mou. the tolling agreement was a request that the san mateo county had. our office, from a policy perspective, working with the city attorney's office, felt that making this tolling agreement with san mateo with respect to the local hiring legislation would not put us in
1:33 pm
a negative position, and it was a matter that san mateo county was quite interested in having. we felt that, from a policy perspective, it would not impact our ability to continue to move the program forward. it there is any questions, happy to answer, and i encourage your support. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, seeing no question, let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? ms. jackson. >> good afternoon. i am asking you to please pass on this, because it has been over a year now, almost two years, that we have worked on at this for local hiring here in san francisco. and there is going to be a meeting at 3:00 here at city hall to talk about giving an update on how the local hiring
1:34 pm
has been going. and that will be in room 278 with avalos on june 22, so i am asking you to pass this. and thank god, we got it. thank you. supervisor cohen: if you can is replete that for the listeners at home. >> for the listening audience, it will be a 3:00 p.m., city hall, room 278. an update will be given on how local hiring has been going on since it has been approved by you, the board of supervisors. and i wanted to say, because i do not think that will get up here again, those of you that are watching and knew my brother, daniel young, he passed yesterday morning, and his body will be at lewis, and i think
1:35 pm
that funeral is on friday. daniel young was born and bred here in san francisco. his birthday was november 1956. that was my baby brother. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. i am sorry for your extended family. >> supervisors, you know that supervisor john avalos and some of you supervisors who are in favor of local hiring did a lot, maybe for the first time, to safeguard employment here in san francisco. and i have heard guillermo come over here and make some statements, but i would like that whatever this adjudication was done with assemblyman hill
1:36 pm
to whoever was part of the deliberation that this be put on the internet for us to know. we have many projects in that area, san mateo, linked with the sfpuc. and we will like to know how exactly we can address those projects. a lot of the projects suggest that puc, even though sfpuc is the lead agency and is headquartered in san francisco, when it comes to the projects in san mateo, we really do not have any guidelines now. we need to know from this deliberation what transpired. so it is good that it came to this meeting for the public at home and many of us who are involved with real work force,
1:37 pm
because we put people to work. we need to know the deliberations. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a quick question for you. mr. da costa. i am curious, when you say what transpired, are you looking for a copy of the meeting? >> no, there is the head of the department, and he is saying that he met some people with san something. whatever they mutually agreed to represents the city. i am a constituent of the city and county of san francisco, but also, i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, and i am involved with work force, real work force. we have a hub where we have businesses, and we give them
1:38 pm
certification. then we see that they get a contract, and we see that young people work. but we want to do the proper way, and we want to understand, because we go to a jurisdiction like the san mateo and we will want to know what's -- i am reqs
1:39 pm
good that they met and came to some understanding, but i am saying, work force, generally, is very sensitive. thank you very much. >> man and ask him to come out, and maybe you can provide some answers to some of the questions that mr. da costa said specifically on what transpired. is there a resourced or meeting notes linked to a website? just provide us a little bit of transparency as to what happened and how the disagreement came about. >> the legislation that was passed for mandatory local hire created an opportunity for the city and county of san francisco to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions. the idea was that the
1:40 pm
construction industry, it is a regional industry. of the understanding that san francisco has many projects that are outside of our city limits, and we needed an opportunity to be able to share of the success of our local mandatory program with other jurisdictions where the work that san francisco was funding would funding -- would contact us. a reciprocity agreement was entered into. we looked at san mateo as the first pilot to try to enter into an agreement. the idea again, looking a major projects at sfo, certainly the puc activities. we have san bruno jail in san mateo county. given we have a significant construction footprint, there should be opportunities for san mateo resident to also benefit from san francisco's program. the concept of the reciprocity agreement was then put forward,
1:41 pm
really with the idea of taking the existing legislation and making it available to san mateo residents as well. a lot of the materials for how the program will work on construction projects, we have made available to the public at our website,, and i will also be presenting at the meeting that was mentioned earlier, that the community advocates are pulling together to get an update. we will also share that information with them there. supervisor cohen: thank you. >> i did know that there were some inquiries with my office, and i had conversations with president chiu and supervisor avalos, as well. i wanted to thnak her for making sure there is a good relationship. is this going to open the door for alameda county, where a number of the puc projects, and potentially other counties, to
1:42 pm
try to negotiate with us also? >> from oewd's perspective, if the board approves the mou that is before you, we believe we now have a template to be able to work with other jurisdictions where, again, san francisco has a footprint in terms of our construction programs, and in turn, to reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions. supervisor mar: thank you. if there is no other public comment, public comment is closed. can we move items 7 and 8 without objection? the committee report for the meeting of the june 21, 2011, without objection? great, thank you. >> i need to return to the budget committee, so i ask to be excused. supervisor mar: without objections. >> thank you. supervisor mar: please call item number two, the hearing. thank you, everyone, for bearing with us so that supervisor
1:43 pm
wiener can get back to the budget committee meeting. >> item number two, a hearing on the muni's t-line. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen: now we get to go to the fund's staff. colleagues, i have called this hearing, quite frankly, to discuss -- to have a frank discussion about this service reform and 40 muni t-line. it has been four years, and it is time we step back and evaluate the quality of service that it is providing. many of you know the challenges that we in the city experience in the first half of 2007, when the light was first opened. it is safe to say that the reliability has improved since those trying days, but there's still room for improvement. and muni is taking a proactive approach on these steps necessary to deliver an enhanced level of service.
1:44 pm
to that end, we have all made a significant investment in this line. the goal of improving access to the rest of the city, from our southeastern neighborhoods, is contingent upon the viability of this t-line. i look forward to an informative and thoughtful discussion today. we have staff and the public to evaluate the success at this point, which as been a major investment. i would like to ask staff to come up and make a presentation. i believe we have john from the mp -- from the mta is going to be presenting. sir, thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to come here and talk about the t-line and the system, in general, and also, wanted to thank you in advance for your helping us focus with a set of
1:45 pm
questions and issues that we will try to address as we walked through this. if i may, i would like to just introduce a couple of my colleagues. i am john haley, the director of transit operations bitter i am joined by reginald mason -- i am joined by reginald mason, director of the safety, security, and training. and enforcement. and julie is our service planner and is also our expert on the transit effectiveness program. we have a member of our sustainable streets division. i thought it was important, as we go forward and talk about the t-line, while i will submit to you that it is an integral part of the rail system, the unique features that perhaps make the t-line a model for where we want to be with the rest of the system, one of those is the use
1:46 pm
of a signal priorities to help move the line along. we have our in-house expert on that. with that, if i may, we have put together a brief powerpoint, and feel free to stop me at any time. as i said, i want to touch on both the fact that the t-line is an integral part of our existing system, as well as it has its unique features and is the newest line. it was, we believe, well conceived in terms of giving a rail line the flexibility to do some of the things to help it stay on service. i am talking about the t-line high platforms and to the introduction of a signal prioritization. i would say briefly, i know both of you know the basic characteristics of the line, but it is important to point out that the line itself is the longest one in the rail system.
1:47 pm
a kind of breaks out into four distinct segments. if you start on the k part of it, what you'll see is the first part of the segment that goes to the west travels along in mixed traffic, by city college, along ocean avenue, highly congested. it moves very slowly. when you get to west portal, that is worthy k t-line blends with the rest of the rail lines as the go downtown. interestingly enough, to clear embarcadero, once again, you have the t-line blending with the n-line. it goes to 4th and king to serve caltrans and also for the special events. the last piece of the line, from downtown sunnyvale, is really the only part of it that is a straight pure t-line.
1:48 pm
so it is both, as i tried to say in the introduction, both a line that has some unique features, as well as being an integral part of the system itself. again, on that the characteristics of the line, on the next slide, we covered some of that. i just wanted to recap on here some of the important things about the line. supervisor mar: can i ask one quick question? so the central subway extension of the t-line as it is developed over the next couple of decades, or decade, how is that going to impact -- isn't that an extension of the t-line as well? >> no, if i may, mr. chairman, i would offer -- as it stands right now, i came to talk about the questions on the t-line itself. the central subway will have an impact on both the t-line and
1:49 pm
the whole system, and the impact will be such that i think it would -- if i may, i would offer to bring both the operating people and myself and the project people to talk about how that will impact. but right now, if the chair pleases, i think it would be better if we stuck to what we have today. i could be much more specific in the future on the central subway. supervisor mar: let me ask it differently. is that line that goes to the missoni center to the caltrain station and into chinatown at washington and stockton, is that considered an extension of the t-line? >> yes, it is. supervisor mar: at some later time, it would be valuable to find out how that may impact the t-line, especially as we're
1:50 pm
talking about the effectiveness and efficiency of the line. that would be very helpful for the future. >> it will impacted, and i would be pleased to come back with the project people to talk about that. some of that is part of what we're working on a collaborative lieely right now, looking at hoe maximize the benefit of the system that we have while we extend it. ok, if i may, and again, i just want to recap very quickly on the ridership, because this is some 30,000 boardings a day out of a total of about 150,000 boardings on the subway. my apologies if this does not distinguish between the two. the point is, if you go on the left side, moving towards town, the green ones are people that are getting on.
1:51 pm
the clear ones are people getting off. the message on this is that as you look at the line in itself, you have got kind of a bi direction of rush-hour. the green line's are people getting on comic going up first to city college, and then to work. and eventually into town. and the same thing on the other side, people going into the town or coming into work in the morning, and what you see is a lot of people to ingleside going in and in the reverse direction, not a lot of people getting off. although there are some people in the business district. what we wanted to point out here was to say the potential to grow the existing rights -- ridership, and it is a combination of commuters and people going to work, as most of
1:52 pm
the other lines have as well, as some on and off traffic and the central business district. the other thing that i think is not reflected accurately in this is the fact that the number of riders the detectives special events over the ballpark. in the corridor itself, the ridership since 2006 in what is covered by the bus lines has increased from 2006 to 2010 by some 12% at the same time that the sister ridership increased at 4 % -- increased at 4% over that time. with a combination of things, we can continue to grow the ridership on this very important line. supervisor cohen: i have a question before we move on. can you explain one more time the designation between these circles, these questions?
1:53 pm
-- these crescents? the next slide, please. >> i did not mean to go so fast. the greens are the ons, riders getting on. clears are people getting off. the reason i speak with such confidence about the numbers behind the blogs is this was ridership data that came out of our program. it was developed over a number of years. it was validated. a gives a trend of both specific -- it is down to a stop-buy-stop level. it gives us a snapshot of to is going where, who is getting off at what times, and how that travel patterns influenced. the point i want to make here, because this is the longest line in the system. the running time is 76 minutes. supervisor cohen: how many
1:54 pm
minutes? >> 76. so there is not a lot of people that are getting on, say, in the morning at balboa park and then writing to sunny delaware. the line breaks down for ridership -- and then riding down to sunnyvale. what is interesting about this is that it is from a rush-hour perspective, you have got workers, for the most part, and some students, coming in from both the ocean avenue side and from the sunnyvale side, coming into downtown to work in the morning. of course, you have also got various activity coming out of downtown, going down third street and down ocean avenue. but the greater and the river sunday evening. during the mid days, you have got some people getting off. as you can see, on and some of the -- when you go past the ballpark part of it, on the
1:55 pm
third street site, some folks that are going to the central business district along third street. supervisor mar: for the audience that is not familiar with the lingo of the mta and muni, tep is the transit effectiveness of project. some of the data that goes into these graphs and other things you're using are based on community meetings, studies, and analysis based on the tep or the transit effectiveness project. >> yes, and my apologies for using an akron that without adequate explanation, but you are right on point. supervisor cohen: i know this is everyday knowledge for you, but you have got to slow down. this is the first time many of us are hearing this information. it is important for us to have this valuation. for a point of clarification about the tep program, you say you collected data. it is a curious to know if the
1:56 pm
data was disseminated, the questions or disseminated in any other language, any language other than english? >> if i may, i believe it was. but let me defer the question to julie. >> yes, the tep materials were prepared in english, spanish, and chinese. when we were developing the recommendations, we had workshops across the city providing translation in spanish, english, and chinese. in our visitation valley workshop, we also had mandarin. in our district one workshop, i believe we did just cantonese. supervisor mar: i was at its session at the jewish community center, and a number of consultants held out to make it very multilingual and very sensitive to communities.
1:57 pm
supervisor cohen: thank you, ok. >> ok, if i may, the question had been asked of -- what kind of systems have been put in place to work on improving the service? one of the things i wanted to point out, the single biggest customer complaint that we get about this service, in general, but including the rail services is about travel time and why we cannot go faster. interestingly enough, the t- line is, in fact, the fastest line in terms of travel speed. again, i said earlier that the t-line may be a model for the way we design lines. it is faster, even though it has
1:58 pm
cut congested areas in part, because we have got exclusive right of way. we have got a signal priorities. it has less stops than the other lines. in fact, while it does have some segments that can slow it down, not just mission rock to folsom in that area that is highly congested threw the ball park, but when you get down on the third straight line, when you clear the bridge, you have the fastest rail travel in the system. i think it was important that one of the things went third street was designed and implemented, part of what we tried to do was to get out of the way of the traffic as best we could. from a travel perspective or travel time perspective, we're headed in the right direction. at the same time, the on-time
1:59 pm
performance for the t-line is 58%. that is not where we would like to be. and again, part of the reason i walk you through the scope of the line and where people are getting on and off and said it is 76 minutes travel time is some of the biggest issues on on-time performance, for example, we measure it at west portal. the biggest delay on this particular line, on the the k-t line is if we have a gap in service or if there is a train missing or a train is significantly late. normally we try to make an adjustment. when you go from west portal, there is no switch or no physical plant that allows us, beyonce st. francis circle -- so from st.