SFMTA’s own documents place capital infrastructure improvements at a higher priority than new capital infrastructure projects like the Central Subway. The problem I have with the Central Subway is not the idea itself, but its, timing, its execution, and its cost. SFMTA has prioritized the Third Street Light Rail project in the past ahead of basic street maintenance and in the past got the SF BOS to approve over $22 million of Prop K funds to be allocated to this new capital improvement at the expense of roads, sidewalks, bikes, and signals.

This year SFMTA awarded a management and consulting contract to AECOM-EPC Joint Venture for $147 million; the BOS originally only authorized $82 million for this phase of the project.

The Central Subway project is already out of control financially, we have no clear idea what the ultimate cost will be – certainly more than the estimated $1.5 billion (the mgmt. contract alone is now close to 10% of the cost). The tunnel will be bored with only five feet or so of clearance relative to the existing BART tunnel. SFMTA engineers (one so far) estimate that there is a water flow rate within the substrate of the projected MUNI tunnel of approximately 5 gal/min. Such hydrologic problems have greatly complicated tunnel projects in the past.

Questions emailed directly to SFMTA regarding the Central Subway from our little committee continue to go unanswered.

So here’s the dilemma: go with the Central Subway, a project struggling hard within a financial and engineering fog bank of difficulties and expend tax payer money (Federal, State, and Local) that had best be used to attempt to maintain and improve the transit infrastructure San Francisco has.

The way it appears to be shaping up now is that the Political Powers that be will force the poorly implemented Central Subway project on San Francisco and then attempt to float bond issues to band-aid over the rapidly deteriorating existing transit system.

Sorry to belabor the Central Subway vs. Bond Issue point; however, in light of the $147 million AECOM-EPC JV contract, I thought taking a quick look at one of AECOMs other projects with a major transit authority might be helpful.

On June 15th, 2009, AECOM in a joint venture with some other industry heavy-weights, was awarded a $111 million dollar contract modification with New Jersey Transit for construction of a Trans-Hudson River tunnel. Copy of article and source link below:

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–AECOM Technology Corporation (NYSE:ACM), a leading provider of professional technical and management support services for government and commercial clients around the world, announced today that a joint venture in which it participates has been awarded a contract modification worth US$111 million for New Jersey Transit’s multi-billion-dollar Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel (THE Tunnel).

The joint venture, known as THE Partnership (THEP), consists of Parsons Brinckerhoff, AECOM and STV, Inc., and will complete final design and preparation of contract-bid packages for THE Tunnel. The 3.5-mile tunnel will double commuter rail capacity between New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a partner with NJ Transit for this project.

“AECOM is proud to play a key role in this important transportation infrastructure project, which will noticeably improve the availability of transportation between New York and New Jersey,” said John M. Dionisio, AECOM president and chief executive officer. “Additionally, this effort will create and sustain jobs as it progresses.”

The project includes the construction of two new tracks in New Jersey’s Meadowlands, two new single-track tunnels under the Hudson River and an expansion of Penn Station New York under 34th Street, including direct connections to city subways at 8th, 7th and 6th avenues, as well as Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) trains. Additional capacity and a connection to New Jersey Transit’s Main, Bergen County, Pascack Valley and Port Jervis lines will allow for transfer-free service to Penn Station New York. The project also includes new train-storage facilities in Kearny, N.J.

A variety of construction methods will be employed to advance the project, including tunnel-boring machines, rock mining, sequential excavation, and cut-and-cover.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090615005394&newsLang=en

End Source

I wonder how the AECOM trans-Hudson tunnel contract compares with the AECOM-EPC JV Central Subway contract?

New Jersey Transit Authority will spend approximately 9 billion on their project and double their ridership. SFMTA will spend at least 1.5 billion and not even come close to developing a revenue stream that can cope with deferred maintenance on existing capital infrastructure.

SFMTA needs a reality check – if not, San Francisco taxpayers will be stuck with a big bill for an improvement that only directly affects part of the city. Moreover, the SFMTA does not appear to have the funds to maintain capital assets currently under its jurisdiction.

Kind Regards,

David Pelfrey
SF District 4 Pedestrian Safety Committee (PSAC)
sfdistrict4psac@gmail.com

The Central Subway project, like many projects, will be criticized for costs and low ridership relative to costs. In the long-run we won’t know how we lived without it. We can compare projects as for viability, but this project is viable and going forward and that’s enough.

I don’t feel the line you are proposing would confer the same benefits of the Central Subway. Also, the SF MTA as part of the TEP has discussed their desire to extend the Embarcardero LR line West from 4th/King. It’s a more direct shot and could link up with BART at 16th and Mission. I prefer this alignment. Additionally, to increase capacity to such a dense area as exists Van Ness, I prefer a design that will have a greater increase in capacity and speed than what you propose.