Central Subway Too Much Money for Too Little Benefit Civil Grand Jury City and County of San Francisco

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  Over the course of a seven-month investigation, the Jury discovered many problems with the Central Subway plan.  It has a pattern of increasing cost estimates.  San Francisco will be responsible for any cost overruns which could be substantial.  The addition of a new subway line will add to an existing operating deficit and could stretch the existing maintenance environment to the breaking point.  There are no plans to address existing problems on the Stockton corridor before project completion.  There is no effective transfer to the Muni Metro and BART systems.  It ignores service to the Financial District.  It ignores current transportation trends. In 2006, the SFMTA commissioned an independent engineering firm to review the Central Subway design. The resulting report contained the following passage: “Very broadly, what is the role of capital investment in a transit system? It should represent either an opportunity to reduce operating expenses, or represent the most efficient way to bring better service to additional markets. As proposed, this project does not appear to do that – it promises to combine high capital costs with higher operating costs, and . . . does not, apparently, effectively meet the market needs in the corridor it is intended to serve.”20 The Civil Grand Jury agrees that the present project fails to answer San Francisco’s transportation needs. The Civil Grand Jury supports the expansion of its transit system to fulfill O’Shaughnessy’s Four Corridor vision. The Civil Grand Jury concludes that the project must be redesigned. __________________________________________________________________________ 33 SFMTA AND THE CENTRAL SUBWAY METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Jury began its investigation in October 2010 with research concerning planning issues and both local and national transit history. In November the Jury continued its research with a series of interviews which lasted until May 2011. These twenty sessions included taped interviews with: Present and former members of the City’s administration A former member of the Board of Supervisors Current and former administrators, managers and employees of SFMTA Current and former employees of SFCTA Neighborhood groups affected by the Central Subway plan including Chinatown A BART official A member of the California Assembly Officers of San Francisco Neighborhood Associations Urban planners, engineers, transit professionals and administrators The Jury also conducted correspondence with the Federal Transit Administration, the SFMTA, the SFCTA, and community organizers. Finally, Jury members attended various public meetings including the Board of Supervisors and the SFCTA. __________________________________________________________________________ 34 SFMTA AND THE CENTRAL SUBWAY ENDNOTES 1 Robert Cherny, “Historical Essay”, 1994 2 SFCTA, “The Four Corridor Plan”, June 1995 3 SFMTA, Third Street Light Rail Phase 1 + 2 Service Integration, Executive Summary, August 2010 4 http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm 5 http://goldengatebridge.org/research/facts.php#GGBOpened 6 SFMTA, Third Street Light Rail Phase 1 +2, August 2010 7 LTK Engineering Services, “Review of Central Subway Alternatives Project Report,” April 27, 2006 8 SFCTA – Fact Sheet, Jan. 2011 9 SFMTA, 2011 FFGA Financial Plan 10 A review of Muni’s performance, as measured against various metrics, can be found at http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm. 11 SFMTA, 2011 FFGA Financial Plan 12 http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/10/14/sfmta-reveals-breda-light-rail-vehicle-refurbished-with-federal-stimulus- funds/ 13 The actual metric uses the singular “failure.” However, this Jury thinks the plural “failures” makes more sense. 14 For example, the rapid increase in the price of steel in the early 2000s caused a commensurate increase in the construction costs of the new Bay Bridge replacement and the new Laguna Honda Hospital. See http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-10/business/17429261_1_steel-price-hot-rolled-steel-steel-plate. 15 http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm 16 http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/subway-travel-times-disputed 17 http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2011/03/central-subway-design-moscone-center-san- franciscio-called-inefficient 18 http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2010/12/muni-renews-effort-keep-escalators-moving 19 http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/tmp/lrt/discussion_papers/floor_en.html 20 LTK Engineering Services, “Review of Central Subway Alternatives Project Report,” April 27, 2006 __________________________________________________________________________ 35 SFMTA AND THE CENTRAL SUBWAY