vehicles, completely redesigned. the range we have is somewhere above what the federal government budgets for a bus. the increment range is fairly broad. the $20 million range is from when we went with a standard approach of off-the-shelf vehicles. $50 million is for all the bells and whistles and had a very large, highly designed vehicle. we committed on the lower end. we think we can save some costs and try to get closer to the $25 million or $30 million mark. on infrastructure, again, there is a range there, depending on what alignment witches, and reconstructing the roadways -- depending on what alignment we choose, and reconstructing the roadways. there is a small funding gap, but we feel we would be able to

close it fairly soon. the fta gave this project a high rating for cost effectiveness. it is one of only two in the country. we thought that would help to close that gap. just to go through the alternative, as with all projects, the first is the baseline for the do nothing. what this really consists of is buying newer vehicles, putting in new shelters, having the off- port fare payment. the project would improve current conditions out there by -- improved run times by about 3%. not a marked improvement, but it would create a different experience. where we have really seen a difference is where we go into alternatives. alternative two is a sideline

bus rapid transit with curve boarding -- curb boarding. vehicles would be boarding in a protected lane. this would increase ridership and reduce run times, so it would be a marked improvement there. there are some specific issues with this, in that there are the right-turning vehicles, and that is a potential conflict to slow this down. alternative three is a center- lane bus rapid transit with right-side boarding. this would improve ridership a little bit more. probably generate about 52,000 riders.

the estimate is that it would improve run times by about 22%, and it basically is a fully dedicated, center-running system. it would require a different type of bus, buses that have left doors on them for a left- door boarding, which we do not do. that is more on the high range of the alternative and the vehicle cost. the fourth alternative is the center-lane bot with left-side boarding. that would give similar ridership and performance. there are several key infrastructure designs. the previous alternatives did not require [inaudible] this one does. this requires five doors as

opposed to the usual three because of the left-side boarding. there are some specific issues were operation that make this work pretty well. specific for the customer experience. it is a different facility to have on the street because it is much more like light rail where it does not really matter where the platforms are. the doors will open, but there are some differences in that it is light rail in how these are operated once they leave the facility. there are some things we are working on. as they have been going through these different issues with internal staff and our

transportation advisory committee, we have narrowed it down to about five specific issues that we think we can resolve and we think we can get through to. the operational characteristics -- different types of alignments require different types of buses, so new technology for the mta is going to have a learning curve in terms of having our operators understand and our maintenance crew learn how to operate and maintain these vehicles. the infrastructure, the maintenance agreements with those. transportation circulation -- there is strange that is going to happen, so there will be some impact to general transportation circulation, but we believe we have developed enough of the tools to mitigate these as we can, and the funding peace -- we are confident we of

-- we can close the gap on the project because of its priority and its tragic. these are the left-door and right-side door operations. on the bottom left is the traditional three-store operations. on the right-hand side is the two-store operation. they are in operation in cleveland, and they have been performing very well with the similar infrastructure load being placed on them. on the geary project itself, this is a little less developed just because of our timing. we have been focusing very heavily on van ness, not forgetting that geary is much

larger. right now, there are 50,000 riders, served by the 38 series of lines. geary limited is pretty much overcapacity. we are really looking at improving the quality with this facility. very similar to van ness, just improving existing conditions today. about a 3% improvement over existing service. on the alternative two, which is the side-lane bot with curb-side boarding, because it is a capacity issue, adding a few

vehicles actually bumped up the ridership significantly. we go from 51,000 to 57,000, and we think this is just an estimate and it could be higher. there are a lot of segments where the -- where we have done what we can to preserve the parking and not interfere with operations. it will create some performance characteristics that will not be as great as the next alternatives, which are center lanes, one with right-side boarding and one with left-side boarding. numbers are still being finalized, but there are significant increases in capacity. we do want to mention that these corridor project are being designed so that they are light- rail ready.

when we can afford to do this, we want to make sure that nothing in this precludes light rail service. i forgot to mention for both of these, there is a memorandum of agreement between the transportation authority and the mta to jointly plan and design projects, and then mta has agreed to operate the project. it has been a very productive partnership. it has been very informative to get -- to work through a lot of these issues. the geary project again, the draft release is somewhere in the fall of 2011. we expect to have the lpa selected around fall 2011. the completed eir somewhere around mid-2013. project construction could commence as early as 2013 or

2014 with the project opened in 2016. on the funding side, this project is not as refined yet in terms of the numbers, so the numbers are much larger in range. depending on what kind of vehicles we choose, the infrastructure and funding sources we have available right now have a little bit of a larger funding gap, but again, we feel confident we can at least get closer to it. we have thought about the idea of phasing the project in terms of the availability of funds we perceive for the next couple of years, and that will help us improve the conditions. on the outstanding issues again, the geary corridor had issues

with the van ness corridor. there is an additional item we are looking at on how to integrate bicycling, and we have been working with the community and stakeholders to determine the best outcome for a truly multi modal corridor -- multi- modal corridor. for future projects, we have identified geneva, honeyway and potrero. honeyway is probably the furthest along in terms of approval. the project was part of the hunters point shipyard project development agreement that the board considered last month, so it would be funded through these development agreement with contribution by federal, state, and local sources. we are also looking at integrating the projects into

the rapid service plan, which looks at the corridors as all high-quality corridors, regardless of their mode. like i said, van ness' eir will be ready for comment in winter 2011. the alternative selection will be spring of 2011. we will come to the board for the selection of the lpa. similarly in that timeframe, there will be an opportunity to have the board select the the haeckel selection specifications -- the vehicle selection specifications. with geary, the draft eir will begin public comment in the fall. that is what i have so far. a lot of information. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> thank you. sounds like a very comprehensive and exciting report. director beach: i agree. it was a very good report. this board and agency has adopted a climate action plan that calls for us to beat zero- emission vehicles completely by 2020 -- be zero-emission vehicles completely by 2020. currently, half the fleet is motor coaches and half the fleet are trolly coaches -- trolley coaches. are they going to split those? i know that will come back to us when we get the vehicle specs, but it is something we will need to be aware of. >> [inaudible] we will definitely come back to you and discuss the policies with the city on our selection

of vehicles. >> thank you for the presentation. i agree that this is exciting. two basic questions about the plans you are envisioning. is it the plan that these lands will be designated bus lanes with some sort of like preference technology? and one thing you said that sort of concern me, and you may not have intended it this way, but you said the van ness project is more along the way because it has been getting more attention? >> we have been working on the schedule for both projects. we have been working on van ness and geary as well, but we have been focusing on van ness. >> because of the eir deadlines and the sort of thing? i want to be clear that i have no problem with the van ness project, but in my view, when

you look at that map you have, it really tells a picture. the richmond district is the area in greatest need, in my view, of some sort of rapid transit. i'm glad to see that the eir is coming out in 2011, and i appreciate your clarifying that there is room to grow this into an lrv project down the road. this is something that director ford and i have talked about a great deal. that is the ideal situation, but i'm glad we are starting with it. so thank you. director brinkman: that was a great presentation. i love the brt. i was lucky enough to see one in guadalajara, mexico, and the riders just loved it.

my question that i had was -- to the -- do teh br -- do the brt's in operation had steady headway is? >> they operate similar to light rail, so they maintain very consistent headways. we worked on the metro orange line in los angeles, which works like a light rail facility. there is a lot of demand, and it grows really quickly, similar to what we had with the f line. a lot of people want to write these things, and they work very well -- a lot of people want to ride these things. >> are you going to have a lot of town hall meetings, a similar approach to the tep?

>> yes, we have been working closely with the transportation authority, who have a citizens advisory committee. there have been a number of public outrage -- public outreach meetings, and really good feedback. really good technical feedback as well. >> anybody else? great, thank you. >> you do have a member of the public that wishes to address you. >> good afternoon. i'm tehe deputy for planning with the transportation authority. i just wanted to add to the excellent presentation and acknowledge him as our main counterpart. thank you for agendizing this item. it is a wonderful opportunity to present the work we have been doing together cooperatively on an exciting project that will be

pioneering efforts nationwide. they are the corner stones -- the cornerstones of the muni/tep network. in recognition of the importance and the excitement and enthusiasm around these projects, a few years ago, we did strike this mou to cooperatively deliver these projects. mta would assume responsibility for constructing the project, and together, we have been going to advocate for funding. the region has been so excited. the federal government has been so excited to support us, so that is really fantastic news. in both phases today, there has been strong partnership. i want to acknowledge the coordination with mr. haley's

section, and together, i think we will be working through the issues that timothy manchin that remain -- the operational, the circulation, the vehicle facilities and the like -- the issues that timothy mentioned that remain. in the region, van ness is one of two projects that has regional priority. we are excited to be on the verge of releasing the draft eir and look forward to the lpa selection process. and ultimately, system design. thank you very much. >> you mentioned the two projects of high priority. what was the other one? >> geary is just a half step

behind. >> i thought there was one some other place in the country -- >> the other one is ac transit. sorry, i misunderstood. they are doing international boulevard telegraph avenue that spans three jurisdictions. >> on the van ness corridor, -- as i recall, on the geary corridor, we had seen some concern from the merchants along the way. we have not seen that with van ness. >> our biggest challenge has been negotiating and coordinating with c -- caltrans. >> thank you so much. next item. >> looks like no other member of the public wishes to come forward. directors, at this time, you are scheduled to go into closed session for a discussion -- so

we need to vote as to whether to conduct a closed session and invoke the attorney/client privilege. director nolan: is there a motion to do that? motion and second. any further discussion? >> open session. item 16, the announcement of a closed session. they voted to unanimously settle a case and take no action. the board also discussed labor negotiations and the performance about the mission but took no action. there was no discussion of anticipated litigation. item 17 is a motion to disclose or not to disclose. as the chairman indicated, we're now returning to the executive

director. chairman nolan: mr. director? director ford: we have had an issue concerning our systems, and i have asked a man to briefly give you an overview of the three main causes of these delays. the three main causes of these delays are disturbed blocks in the subway, and damaged or severing of the peace signal cable loop, and failure to receive automatic train controls signals, so what i am going to ask john to do is verbally give you a quick update on those three particular items, the impact that they have, what causes those failures, and then what is the game plan to resolve them, and, in fact, one of the three issues that i have described as already been solved with software, but at issue are aware, over the last 1.5 munn

spam a two months, there has been an inordinate number of these delays. we have been on top of them and are working closely with manufacturers and consultants reduce of the st. john, could you briefly walk me through these three items? >> ok, just to give the board some context, around those three points, since we have restored the rail service back in september, there is a number of things i think from the positive side that have gone on with the service, number one. we have consistently made a count, which is 114 every day. the operator availability, we continue to put the service out there.

this is interrelated. all five lines are tied together, so if you have an issue with one, you have an issue in all of them, and what has taken place, i think, again, in the context of these types of incidences is that you have a very heavily used infrastructure. you have a system that is -- when i say system, i am talking about the infrastructure, meaning signals and the control system, but also the vehicles themselves that interact on a daily basis. what has taken place in terms of the last several days, first of all, in the types of incidents, the system has -- the first category of incidents -- first, let me start with the automatic

train control system, the ats. trains enter at one of three areas. when they go from manual into automatic and go into the subway, they are supposed to stop, get the signal. and on an average, in the month of september/october, and a couple of months proceeding that, on almost 200 plus times in a month, we did not get that signal. now, the cause of that is either something in the wayside or something on the vehicle, and the impact from a service perspective is when the train is not recognized, the system puts it in manual. there is a restricted set of procedures that must be followed. the safety spacing is increased,

so the system is slow down, and, again, in an integrated system, it has a residual effect, so this failure to receive the signal does 7 negative impact on service, especially when you have that number -- does have a negative impact on service. over the last 18 to 24 months, the signal -- there is an upgrade to the software, the software being on board the train. it recognizes when a train is going from.1 mota into -- going from one mode into another. the fleet was retrofitted and completed in the second week of october, and it has been from the end of that time in october to september -- what that tells

us is, number one, the software if it is working, that the trains are accepting and getting automatic train control. in addition to that, what we need to continue to look at is the maintenance of the wayside equipment and then other causes on the vehicle that could cause a trained not to get the signal system, so in that particular system, we have an average of some 200 plus per month. the principal change has been the software fix that has been developed in concert would signal manufacturers, and those instances are going down. we can trust them. the second type of instance that happens, in in a couple of these, it has been significant. -- and in a couple of these, it

has been significant. when you have a splicing or failure of the signal cable, the signal cable sits on the rails. it is the communications between the train and the train control system that allows the train to go automatic. what happens is if something like a metal object or a piece of a metal object hanging from the car side of the train can splice the train control system. when that happens, as has happened 11 times in the month of october, the system fails, and what that means is it goes to manual, and because of the nature of the way we run, you do not have the type of system that you can find the splice automatically. the system is down, and you

continue to move trains, albeit very slowly. it has had a detrimental effect on the service, and then we put people on the ground. we continue in between other trains to try to locate the supplies and identify and make a repair, -- locate the splice and identify and make a repair, and when we find it, we go back to automatic. there is a device that is attached to the underside of the trucks of the car. its purpose is to hold and then dump sand if there is an emergency brake of situation. since this has been around, there has been a number of issues with them, and this is the fourth. we are working with the vehicle engineering people. they have identified, they believe, a coupl