ready to enter heavy construction, and it is time, i believe, for us to come together as and resistance, and send a message to the people of san francisco and federal government, that we are ready to leverage that investment we made in phase one to begin the next phase. we are ready for the maybe tens of thousands of jobs this will bring us. most importantly, we are ready and in need of the capacity that this system will bring. so that is where i believe we are. if current a challenges were the threshold for determining capital investment for the next generation, we would never make capital investment. there is no question, muni and the mta have for challenges, as do the rest of government, and we need to work through those, we need to be held accountable for those, but today's operational challenges are not a reason not to invest in the

future of san francisco, and that is what this project is. we did respond point by point to every finding and recommendation. we are not going to go through the entire response today, but we do want to bring everyone up to speed on exactly where we are in addressing the main themes of the recommendations in the report, and to do that, i would like to ask the gentleman managing the central subway project to walking through a brief presentation. supervisor campos: thank you. >> chairman campos, a good morning. john fungi, central subway program director. the t-line has benefited from

over 20 years of planning initiated with the motorman did in 1989, at th. the central subway is one of the four corridor that has entered into design and construction. finally, the reaffirmation of the efforts established in the late 1980's and 1990's with the passage of proposition k, which was approved by 75% of the voters and issue with a 30-year transportation expenditure plan. the t-line, which encompasses phase 1 -- which is an operation as the 2007 -- and the extension of its e-line initiative with an environmental review in 1999. program has had 350 community

meetings where the various questions that were asked have been answered, and dealing with the alignment to the depth of the alignment, transportation community that the line will serve. has gone through extensive review that began in 1999 and concluded with the planning approval in december 2008, and finally nepa approval from the federal government in november 2008. the key steps to the central subway project, past 42 recent times -- -- fast forward to recent times, the agency is in the process of acquiring the real estate. we will close escrow on the chinatown station property as of november 1. we have begun three major construction contracts that will

deliver the seven construction -- the seven construction contracts that will deliver the program. we have entered into final design, have awarded three major design contracts. the current state of final design completion is 90% complete. also, we have received a letter of no prejudice approval from the fta that will allow us to consider advanced construction which will allow was to put forth the utility contracts in construction and award the requirements for the tunnel contract. a milestone for the project was submission of the full funding grant agreement application to the federal government on september 19 of this year. that represents significant years of hard work from the city community as a whole, that will capture and leverage that have said sales tax leverage that the

city began in 1989, to essentially require a $982 million that the federal government had set aside for the delivery of the central subway program. the overall online, 7.1 miles, that would be the first north- south real connection for the city in over 50 years, connecting the southeast sector of the city to the business, civic, and cultural centers of san francisco with two lines that will serve the t-line. a long line that will serve the entire corridor from little hollywood in the bayview all the way to chinatown and what we call the t-line short line, that will turn around in mission bay to capture the significant growth that is currently under way to serve the mission bay and

build out of the bayshore community. central subway is located to essentially capture the major regional connections for the city of san francisco, having direct connectivity to caltrain, bart, and muni metro. it serves a bit and the population where 60% who live along the corridor rely on muni for their transportation needs. in terms of the 2011 update, the central subway project has been a big advocate of putting local businesses and seven systems to work. we have awarded our first two contracts to a local firm, employing local folks and representing a small business enterprise goal that exceeded 35%. the central someone has also benefited by being listed in president obama's annual budget.

$200 million has been proposed for the president's budget that will be received by the central subway project. we have released in february of this year our largest contract for the program, the tunnel contract, which we awarded in june. that contract was awarded to healy in the amount of $233 million. $13 million under budget. it will be the largest contract awarded for the central subway program. finally, in july, a showcase of support for the delivery of the program, the tradition authority authorized $57.2 million of local funds that are set aside for the purchase of a tunnel boring machine, advanced construction works for utility 1 and 2 construction contracts,

and the actual construction of the lunch box -- launch box. the program has received $20 million from the federal government that will be set aside for the construction of the central subway program. our first contract has been completed and that have relocated the utilities for the portal and mosconi stations. our second contract is currently under way in union square. that contract is approximately 60% complete, on time, within budget. it will relocate all the utilities underneath the asphalt area on stockton street between ellis and geary to accommodate for the future market street station, and it will be completed in may 2012. the hour tunnel contract, $233

million, $13.25 million under budget. the contractor has initially mobilized in the launchbox area. finally, the four major contracts that will deliver the program. these contracts encompass the actual construction of the three underground subway stations, and assistance contract that will install all of the track and guide way work, communications work, for the operation of the central subway. all of these contracts will go out to bid in the first three quarters of 2012. the fta has been very supportive of the program because of its intense user benefit and transportation benefits for the citizens of san francisco. we have received four years running a medium-i f t a new

start reading. we are rated one of the highest agencies in the country. and thus, we have received significant praise from the federal transit administration for the advancement of a central subway program. finally, the submission of the full funding grant of agreement and application in september this year, essentially, outlines a major goal for the program to get this far. it has been an effort that has been a true collaboration with the board, the sport, transportation authority, federal transit administration, mtc, and getting us to a point where we have voiced ourselves to be the benefactor of approximately $900 million of funding. i would like to focus on four major facts of the program, it

the program budget. it in november 2008, the program was budgeted -- bear in mind, at this point, the environmental process had been cleared, alignment selected, and agencies advancing this alignment -- they had taken it from preliminary to final design. the program was cost out at $1.3 billion. that alignment had gone through with the fda requires of a risk assessment process, a process that experts from around the world come to san francisco, four major meetings that encompass nine months, that essentially take a look at the risks of the programs. there a body which and of the project was a recommendation that the program needs to increase its contingency levels approximately $278 million. and with that from the federal

government, the federal government actually increased the federal funding contribution of $180 million. that affect in early 2009 and established a program budget of 1.578. within that budget, currently, as of this month, $264 million of contingencies for the program. fact number two, excellent connectivity to the union square market street station. there is a direct connect to the concourse well underneath apple store for the union square market street station providing an excellent collection point for our patrons to head from the north-south, east-west direction.

having a direct connection underground for our patrons to go to will help the traffic on the surface. very high court or ridership levels. i'm opening day, we anticipate 44,000 riders per day. in 2030, 65,000 per day. on a national level, these levels are unheard of for a light rail system. we are actually, on a per-mile basis, the t-line will be one of the heaviest used in the nation. agency's operating budget. the cost to operate the central subway in 2019 will be bought

$1.67 million. this represents a quarter of the overall operating budget. the civil grand jury report is essentially 38 findings that were split, 50% dealing with the agency, the remaining half dealing with the central site. these are the following categories at the agency has responded to come a point by point, on each of the questions and concerns raised by the civil grand jury. one of which was the operating budgets. using today dollars coming in 2019, the operating budget increase will be $1.67 million. in 2030, it will become $6.89 million coming in today dollars. that will represent the agency's need to put on more vehicles,

increase the headway, deal with the increase in the daily ridership from the 44,000 per day, up to the 65,000 per day. the challenges with the agency's operating budget are not driven by the addition of an efficient rail extension. and it does that obviate the need for the agency to do with transportation capacity . as citizens migrate from cars to public transportation, this is the infrastructure we need. financial capacity. as part of one of the conditions for receiving federal money, the federal transit administration has retained the services of a

financial management oversight consultant that looks at the agency's and products financial management and capacity. one of the requirements of federal funding is that it meets or exceeds the federal threshold as it relates to financial capacity. finally, the t-bird line. central subway being the benefactor of significant federal investment, with that investment comes an obligation of the agency to demonstrate technical capacity and capability to deliver and manage and operate this program. one of the requirements of the program is to meet the technical capacity and capability requirements from the federal government. i am pleased to state the program has received federal approval on technical capacity and capability.

finally, the state of the design and construction of the central subway program. the program is currently on budget. we have within our program budget a $264 million contingency level, which meets and exceeds the contingency management threshold's from the federal government. so the project is currently poised extremely well to receive the $982 million of federal funding. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you for your presentation. colleagues, any questions? supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: a question on the timing of the funding. when will we find out about that? that is the majority component of what we're talking about here for the whole picture. >> it starts with an application in september, proceeds on to an administrative review.

there is an administrative review process internally from the federal transit administration to the department of transportation. it takes approximately 45 to 60 days. we are currently within that administrative review cycle. there is also a not to exceed 60-day of the application. if all goes well, in late january, early february of next year. supervisor farrell: banks. supervisor campos: any other questions? -- thanks. thank you again to the civil grand jury for their work on this matter and to the department for their response. we have the executive director of the san francisco county transportation authority mr. milosevic. -- moscovich.

>> good morning, chairman, supervisors. i have just a few points but i would like to make. i will try not to duplicate what has already been presented by ed reiskin and his staff from the mta, but it is worth spending a couple of minutes reviewing some of the facts related to the project, and also to honor your comment, supervisor campos, about the fact that the grand jury reports focuses in its recommendations away from the central subway. there are some interesting policy issues and i think should not be lost. first of all, it should be crystal clear to anybody who would entertain at this very late stage in the development path of this project, which as you heard has already entered

the construction phase, that if this project were to be canceled, for example, there would be no way to redirect the funds that are expected to come to this project that early. -- federally. the funding process is pretty complex. it does not start the year you get the funds, it starts a decade before that, at the earliest. it involves not just the federal government, but a series of prior decisions at the regional level, where the metropolitan transportation commission has what is currently resolution 33, 34, the transit expansion plan, which is essentially a road map for how the process would be prioritized among the many competing projects in the region

looking for rail funds. so, given the complexity of the federal process, and the regional process, it is almost impossible to imagine that there would be an outcome where san francisco would end up with a billion dollars in funds that were not going directly to this project. the likely outcome would be that san francisco loses $1 billion in federal funds. i have made this point before that committees and boards before. i think it is important to reiterate. it is just a reflection of what the process is. it is not our discretionary choice, not even the federal government's. there is a process that will be followed and the outcome is likely to be money for something else. not that anybody is talking about canceling the project at this late stage. the other thing that is

fundamental is, because of the history of this project, the local match for that enormous amount of money coming to the project, has already been spent on the first phase. the t-bird was built with a huge amount of local money, including contribution from prop b. at local amount is committed through action. we are just at the moment where we are about to reap the benefits of having made that commitment, having our money multiplied several fold with federal contribution. frankly, i am looking forward to receiving the federal money, and we will do the best we can to make the case naturally -- nationally. this project, as far as rail projects in the nation, ranks

highly, and that takes me to my next topic, which is the issue of ridership. there have been a lot of questions about ridership estimates for the project. the 43,000 or so rides that this project is its expected -- is expected to have is the result of a scrupulous modeling process. the transportation authority was principally responsible for those forecasts. we have the best travel demand model in the west, bar none. i am fully confident that those ridership estimates will materialize. there is also an estimate for the 25-year mark, which is around 63,000, 64,000 riders a day. i think we can achieve that. in addition to the basic ridership that is essentially there, we would have reaped the

benefit of the right to land use decisions along the corridor. it is absolutely a program to talk about employers along the third street corridor, and to be part of the beneficiary of the central subway. that is precisely the point of building a subway in a congested area. it increases connectivity, not just to the areas, all the areas it connects to. the other comments i wanted to make, there has been talk about this system-wide impact of opening the subway. you heard john talk about how this is a fraction of the% of the operating budget of the mta every year. similarly, we are talking about a mile and half of service within the subway with only three stations. by all accounts, you are looking at a travel time not much longer

than five or six minutes. there is no way this extension of the existing t-third will provide measurable impact. there were problems when it was opened. you have 5 miles of at-grade service with many intersections with all the same problems you have with the bus lines, cross traffic come across -- traffic lights, double parked cars. that will not happen in the subway. the idea that this is somehow going to degrade the level of service in the system simply does not compute. there needs to be adequate lease, maintenance. that is an issue that the central someone needs to look in this project. my point is, the mta will be able to deliver on its fleets, irrespective of whether it takes an expensive project this.

-- expansion project like this. the other, i want to make in reaction to the focus to the on- time performance, there could not be a worse idea than to exonerate the mta of the need to achieve a good love all of on- time performance regional level of on-time performance. the last thing we want to be doing is lowering a standard of performance. it might be a great thing to say we have achieved something, but the reality is, we need transit in this town to work and to be competitive with automobiles, so that people will continue to take it. the last thing we need is an exodus from the transit system because we have lowered the standards. we are committed to working with the mta every day to find ways to deliver service more efficiently, stay on schedule, to find alternatives to delivery that may give the riding public

a better standard of service. but the idea of lowering the standard does not make sense, and we do not need an outside consultant for that. the mta has already completed and efficiency project, and that need to be implemented, and that will start generating a member of results. on the issue of maintenance, i submit to you, from the standpoint of capital projects, again, there should not be a competition between necessary system expansion and the ability to provide maintenance. i am not saying mta has done everything it can do in terms of building new facilities. we know that outdated facilities result in inefficient maintenance schedules, but the prop k program, when the voters approved it in 2003, devoted $1 billion to maintenance and

rehabilitation projects to transit alone. $566 million of that money is still available for these projects. that money also includes money to match federal funds to renovate the fleet. it is not like we have run out of money to do maintenance facility or to renovate the fleet, but it also does not mean that we can only work on one priority at a time. capital projects and maintenance need to happen. synchronization continues to happen. we are working as aggressively as ever to match federal funds so that we can leverage the potential promised to the voters in prop k. as we continue to invest in a better flea, in a better set of maintenance facilities, we will begin to achieve the goals of more efficient maintenance, the actual activity of doing maintenance, that the mta has been pursuing for a long time.

i do not see these goals as competing with each other in any way. as far as projects in the united states, i think the central some way it is not an out wire either in terms of budget, cost increases, or promise of ridership. in fact, i think it does very well. in the bay area, there are plenty of examples of projects not achieved today, that have potential -- not promised -- because of a land use and environment in which they were built was wrong. a lot of our transit extensions are in that category. this project would perform much better than that. to conclude, we have had a policy level debate started, as far as i remember, in 1993, at a meeting of the chinatown chamber of commerce when the