central subway

7/27/2019 Central Subway

1/4

Central SubwayThe Central Subway project is complex, ambitious, extremelyexpensive, and controversial. The July 7th Civil Grand Jury report

entitled Central Subway: Too Much Money for Too Little Benefitincludes a Muni management and funding assessment, differencesbetween the T-Third and Central Subway projects, an overview of theCentral Subway plan, and findings/recommendations.Concluding that the Central Subway project should be redesigned,the Civil Grand Jury contends that the present project fails to answerSan Franciscos transportation needs. The Central Subway will startat an aboveground station at Fourth St. and Brannan St. and thentravel underground to the Moscone Center, Union Square andChinatown. In order to make this connection, the current T-Third

route will no longer be directly connected to the Muni Metro. Thereare no plans to address existing problems on the Stockton corridorbefore project completion. By choosing a route traveling up Stockton,only Chinatown is served ignoring service to the Financial District.Had the subway been on Kearny, both the Chinatown community andthe Financial District could have been served. According to theSFMTA, riders will lose connections, and to get from the UnionSquare/Market Street Station to the Powell Street Muni Metro Stationis about a thousand feet or three football fields. Ignoring currenttransportation trends, there is also no effective transfer to the BART

system. If connectivity is the overarching goal of the project, then itsdesign is seriously flawed. The Central Subway will pass underneaththe BART tunnel at the Powell Street station. According to a BARTofficial, construction of this segment of the Central Subway tunnelcould have adverse impacts on the BART Powell Street tunnel. Forexample, water displacement and soil removal occurring during theCentral Subway construction could affect the integrity of BARTstunnel.The SFMTA is in the final stages obtaining full funding to build a

subway of 1.7 miles, which is the same distance as the Golden GateBridge. The current cost of this project is $1.578 billion, or $176,000per foot of construction making the Central Subway the mostexpensive 1.7 miles of construction in San Francisco history. Inaddition, the project is the most expensive public transit plancurrently considered for federal funding under the New StartsProgram and Munis single largest capital project. The CentralSubways financial planning appears seriously flawed. Cost estimates


2/4

have risen 143% from 2003 to 2011. The project has a pattern ofsharply rising estimates: from $648 million in November 2003, to $763million in 2004, to $994 million in 2006, and now to $1.578 billion.Funding will come from the Federal Government ($966 million), theState of California ($488 million), and the City of San Francisco from

Proposition K ($124 million). The SFMTAs Risk and ContingencyManagement Plan for the Central Subway project allocates$262,809,536 for contingencies. The project is expected to costapproximately $1,315,490,464 and an extra $262,809,536 is includedin the budget as a precaution. This represents a 22% contingency,and San Francisco will be responsible for any cost overruns, whichcould be substantial. The SFMTA has allocated an appropriateamount of the budget for the Central Subway project to covercontingencies and cost overruns. The Civil Grand Jury recommendshiring an independent entity to investigate whether the proposed

budget is a realistic estimate.Regarding Muni, funding comes from numerous sources includingfederal grants, local grants (Proposition K), San Francisco generalfunds, the SFMTA revenue stream (parking fines), and fare boxcollections. Over the next five years, Muni has planned for $4.5 billionin capital needs. Currently, SFMTA has only been able to identifysources for $2 billion. The source for the remaining $2.5 billion thatSFMTA needs has yet to be identified. The SFMTA must cut $30million in spending and generate $50 million in new revenue annually

or the SFMTA will face a $1.6 billion deficit over the next 20 years.Muni has had financial troubles in recent years and absent anunforeseen windfall, will continue to have financial troubles in thefuture. Given the current and projected state of Munis funding,difficult times lie ahead. This will impact the agencys ability todeliver the level of performance demanded by the charter. Raisingpassenger fares can only have a minimal impact on Munis financialshortfalls.New financial stresses are adding to Munis already-existing financialtroubles, which will potentially worsen the state of Muni service.

Recommending hiring an independent auditor, the Civil Grand Juryargues that Muni is not providing adequate service to its customersand has done a poor job of even nearing the requirements ofProposition E. The addition of a new subway line will add to anexisting operating deficit and could stretch the existing maintenanceenvironment to the breaking point. The Civil Grand Jury believesSFMTA is currently unable to adequately maintain its fleet in good


3/4

working order. Adding a new capital project while struggling to meetcurrent needs could overwhelm the agencys ability to deliverservice.The Civil Grand Jury believes that the SFMTA is unreasonably

optimistic that problems with the T-Third project will not reoccurduring the Central Subway project. There was an 18-month delay onfinishing the 3-year T-Third project, which represents a 50% delay.With a commensurate or fractional delay on the 7-year CentralSubway, the project will exceed current cost and contingencyprojections. In addition, the Civil Grand Jury is concerned aboutincorrect factual details published by the SFMTA, which the Jury seesas a symptom of a bigger problem. The Jury finds that the lack ofcare in the SFMTAs public communications can lead to a lack ofconfidence in their ability to accurately communicate internally and

externally.The Civil Grand Jury also addressed numerous miscellaneousproblems. According to the Jury, the SFMTAs inability to recognizethe obvious need to allot time to new train operators makes the Jurylose faith in the agencys ability to efficiently manage its ownprojects. Another issue is that it seems disingenuous that the SFMTAwould point to the station design as the reason for not includingmoving sidewalks as they themselves designed the stations. Inaddition, there is no apparent justification for mezzanines in theCentral Subway stations with proof-of-payment as the sole method offare collection. Lastly, the SFMTA is planning to buy four new hybridboarding light rail vehicles for the Central Subway. However, all stopswithin the Central Subway and along the remainder of the T-Thirdroute use level-boarding. Therefore, a vehicle dedicated to level-boarding would suffice.Citing ballooning construction costs, design flaws, anticipated costoverruns, and impacts to an overextended Muni budget, City AttorneyDennis Herrera concludes, On the basis of compelling evidence and after discussions with project proponents and opponents alike

I have concluded that the Civil Grand Jury is correct in itsassessment that the Central Subway should be redesigned. Herrerapoints out that cost projections have increased from $647 million in2003 to $1.6 billion in 2011, and that the current plan does notconnect to BART or Muni on Market St. In addition, Herrera contendsthat engineers have been forced to cut corners on station design,reducing platform lengths, and limiting passenger capacity as a


4/4

result of cost overruns. According to Herrera, In the final analysis,the evidence is persuasive that we must honestly reassess ourcommitment to a deeply flawed Central Subway project and that weshould do so before it turns into a fiasco every San Franciscanregrets.During the GAO meeting, Supervisor Chiu made statementsdefending the Central Subway project. According to Supervisor Chiu,No great city regrets building a subway. The issues have beenraised, asked, and answered. At some point we have to move on.The Civil Grand Jury harshly criticized the current plan and theSFMTA. The SFMTA claims that all questions have been asked andanswered, and it is now time to move forward. Supervisor Farrellcautioned the Civil Grand Jury to make their report factual and notsensationalize any issues. Supervisor Farrell motioned to agree with

the recommendations except for recommendation four, andSupervisors Campos and Chiu supported the motion.Connecting People. Connecting Communities.

central subway

Documents