we have done this expecting the state to catch up. if the state doesn't come through, we will begin to reevaluate at least the schedule of some of these projects. these are some of the challenges with the state advocacy agenda. at the federal level, we have reauthorization of the surface transportation act. we generate 50 or $60 billion a year. this act is typically funded with federal gas tax money. this has been declining for many years. the highway trust fund went into deficit.

with no clear signals for a consensus in congress about increasing the gas tax. 18 cents per gallon. it is a political issue. a philosophical difference. it is set back -- about four hours ago, the vice president announced a new high-speed rail program for the nation. there will be 50 billion in high speed rail. if this is new or reshuffled revenue. this will be new or it will be taken from the defense budget so we can support this. the state of california is well-

positioned to qualify for high- speed rail money. we are the only state that has this kind of approval through a referendum, the rail bond. it is at least a bond to commit to the project. $53 billion gets noticed. it was very encouraging to see $8 billion a year or so ago. but $53 billion signals the kind of continuity we have all been talking about in the transportation community. it would be hard to engage the private capital in the system. the federal government signals a rapid, long-term commitment to

this infrastructure. we don't know how this news will do in congress. it is the biggest announcement in a long time for infrastructure and delivers on the state of the union. >> can you talk about the implication of the transbay center and doyle drive parkway? >> i don't think this would have any relation to highway projects. the second phase, the tunnel between fourth and king does not have funding and until we heard this, did not seem to have a

viable way to complete the funding. this could provide the opportunity. >> mr. elsbernd has a question. >> i don't know how the administration intends to make this happen. the main issue is the funding source. you know this better than anybody. it takes more than advocacy. without a champion in the administration, it would never happen. like the california lottery. the chances of winning are the same, but to win, you have to

play. i will be the last person to criticize the administration. this is what we need. a visionerary push from the president and vice president. it may be considered seriously. it it arrives as proposed, it is part of the game. but what a contrast. that is a big step at the federal level. we know parts of the a dvocacy program will be to make sure we show a set of projects ready to go in the bay area, to try to put the best face we can on the conflicts and issues about that, but make a clear

link between high-speed rail and the caltrains service, for capital improvement. and finally, that we show a common front on california, those looking for high-speeld rail money. the state needs to claim a good portion of the moeny to -- money to generate this. the vice president made distinctions and i will circulate this to you. it was in terms of the types of corridors to be upgraded. he talked about true high-speed corridors, the trains could circulate at speeds of 230 mph. and others that would be

regional, operating at slower speeds. speeds reaching to 120 mph. this is what we have with high- speed rail, in new york to boston. it does not go faster than that. plenty of challenges. but this is a turning point in terms of that discussion. i look forward to encorporating that into the advocacy. the other thing is that, just as we conveyed this at thte state level, the advocacy is in for new revenue. gas tax increases or a form of user fee considered fair. even a congestion charge.

imposed in a way that generates opportunity to capture some new revenue. and a clear set of policies about investment in infrastructure. and the urband centers, called to carry the biggest load for the climate change challenge. more efficient trips and so on. we have our hands full with just a couple of items i mentioned. and about san francisco, let me ask the staff to complete tine the -- complete the presentation. do you have any other questions? >> anna laford of policy and

programming. thank you, jose, for a great picture of the legislative agenda at the federal level and the state level. i will go into more specifics. we have a matrix of the general policies that will guide us at the state level. mark watts, as the expert in the state budget, he will give you an overview of what is happening with a proposal on the redevelopment agencyc. . our most important issue, to name a few, are reaffirming the gas tax. this was approved in march 2010. this is a swap where the sales

tax was decreased with a compensating increase in the exhise tax, and this was to allow the state to use these revenues to repay general obligations for bond debt service on transportation bonds, and the sales tax could not be used. it retained the sales tax for public transportation. the intent was to hold tra nsportation harmless. what this does is puts stronger protection -- on transportation with prop 26, prohibiting the increasing of the tax without two-thirds

approval of the legislature. the swap needs to be codified by the legislature. it has general fund issues as well and this is a hot issue. one that will be addressed in the near term with solving the deficit for the budget year. to go through, again, advocating for new revenue at the state and federal level. at the state level, a close look at how revenue is distributed at the regional and the state. in particular, some of the revenue is distributed on population and number of registered vehicles. we would like an expansion for daytime population.

and road and transit usage. we would like to see support for high-speed rail funindding, new transportation revenue, and the prop. 1-a bond fund and infrastructure bond funds in 2008 and 2006. we would like to see them in a stable way, flowing to the project. central subway has 360 million for the funding plan. that is definitely at the high point of the legislative agenda. did you have a question? of course, advocating for

funding for the approvement program so funding can be used for these projects. and local funds will be reimbursed. that is my presentation. i am glad to answer any questions for you about this agenda. i will turn the mike over. >> i just wanted to thank you and lombardo for the great work and the regional approach. there is a coalituion, the county coalition this came out of. what is this alliance? >> these are the counties with sales tax in the county. there is a coalition forming over the years to gather a couple of times a year, coming to a meeting of the minds on a

legislative agenda. >> this 2011 legislative agenda, can you talk about how this is different? it seems very similar and flexibility is a key part. >> there is not that much different. increasing revenue and protecting revenue. that has not changed. if this is reaffirmed, there is a level of certainty as far as protection revenue, which wasn't in play at this time last year. however, transportation revenue is always at risk of diversion. and high-speed rail, time is of the essence to get the

bonds sold and getting the funds flowing in particular, among other projects. >> we have mr. mark watts. >> glad to be here. we have spoken in the past month about the tax swap. it was capitulated here for your benefit. the budget sub-committee met on these issues, and have moved the big budget items off to when the general fund is decided upon or not. the goal of both houses is to have the $25 billion package with the tax extentions and cuts. this will come back in a month

to deal with the technical aspects and their budget requests. today, we hoped to have the senate meet. they will meet on thursday. they -- the republican caucuses are in an off site. they put it off until thursday when both parties and houses are back in session. we do expect all the work we have done since the passage of prop 26 to focus on the reenactment of the fuel tax swap. there was strong indication of support, but if there is failure to adopt the solutions early, we will be in the same

soup as well. they won't let one program area move ahead if it all falls apart in late february or early march. the fuel tax will go if the budget solution is addressed. we recommended not bringing a matrix for you, because the number of bills -- however, a reminder that a week from this friday is the last day of bill introduction. there will be 10 bills on there and we will give you a highlight of what each one does to guide you in your positions on the bill. i did want to draw your

attention to this bill. bell from san jose amended his bill to reflect the governance by adding appointees from the mayor of oakland and capping the representatives, nd thaand that measure is in play. he finally got the green light from mtc. it will be in the commission as the first hurdle. you wouldn't typically expect a policy hearing this early. it depends on the pressure they bring to bear. i haven't heard of any special efforts.

i would not be surprised to hear them pushing for a hearing. they would waid for other bills. we are monitoring this on a regular basis. >> ab-57? >> it is b.e.a.l.l. just a comment, the assembly transportation committee is not represented well by the bay area, with one person. susan from contra costa county. we will have to look for allies in other areas who probably don't care about this battle or concern. so it will be more difficult and i can report that amiano is on this. he started charting out the game

plan to go after the bill and make changes that are needed. your delegation is on top of this. but the bill is not set. >> mr. chair. this is a signifigant policy issue, clearly. one i am sure will get a lot of debate. i am aware that commissioner wiener introduced a resolution opposing the change. i do not know, but i -- mark is not able to assure you this bill will not be moving fast. i wouldn't do my job if i didn't suggest you want to take another position on the bill. this month. in which case, you would want to

make the move today. and there is some place to start from in terms of a position. and so that the delegation has a clear signal, not just from the supervisors but the authority, so this could be modified based on what happens. at this point, that is what seems to be the prudent course of action. >> we don't have this on the legislative update. is it appropriate to take action > >> it could be the item 3 action, to oppose the change. >> the bill has not been introduced? >> it has been.

i do not really know what kind of schedule this will be on. but this is not the most likely scenario it could be an urgency bill. but there is no assurance it won't move quickly. i think you should be on record. you can -- i can take tethe action to the full authority or you can modify item three to include language related to that. it is your pleasure. >> commissioner mar, i will make that motion. >> is there any objection? we should make that so it has been moved. we would like that added with number three. the legislative program.

one following question. do you have a crystal ball? >> normally, the hearings would be in late march. they were introduced in december and it didn't do anything, and it passed the 30-day period. they have a bill ready to go. we will get back to the transportation committee for the policy bill hearings.

this is typically early to mid march, when most bills are ready. if history is guidance, it would be mid-march. there is a quick set between now and that time. there is no appetite and until they get past march 7, it will foster ill will. i think it would be a bad play to try to go fast. but i wouldn't set it aside. mid-march is when we look at the bill. >> the only thing i would ask, given the timeline between our meetings, you gain knowledge that is moving faster.

can you keep us updated, as a committee and the body as a whole. >> i will be coordinating with the lobbying folks. >> thank you. if there are no other questions, we open to public comment. is there anyone here? seeing none, it is closed. so, can we have a motion on item three, the approval of the 2011 state and federal legislative program? and without objection? so we will move this forward. >> next item? >> the authorization of the

director -- an action item. >> mrs. laford has more on the efleet project. >> anna laford with the transportation authority. this is the result of an action the board took in november. adopting a resolution of local support. this project recieved a grant of federal congestion managment funds. city car share had to partner with a public agency. the scope of this project is outlined on page 20 of the packet. city car share will deply and

purchase 12 full-battery vehicles, 12 hybrid, and 12 neighborhood with 12 chargers. the cost is $2.4 million. theose above and beyond will be provided by city car share. we will make sure it follows all the guidelines from the state department of transportation to administer federal grants. and an agency for these funds. the entire contract, 1.7 million, would be funded by the grant.

the award is based on the funds flowing. >> the city car share gives the local match funds. >> correct. and they will be used by 2012. i can answer any questions. >> can you give us teh numbers -- the numbers and the chargers? >> a total of 29 electric vehicles. 24 chargers installed at 12 locations. these are in high-use areas. and let's see.

ucsf < we, we have two location. >> the chargers are currently -- >> for electric vehicles, i don't know. >> so this expands it to 12 other locations. >> right. for the car share program. >> any questions? cohen? >> thank you. they will be hi in high- density areas. is mission bay what you are talking about? >> i will let amy answer these questions.