blended operation as proposed within the aboard the -- the authority plan, you can see that the bottom line of the art project can be delivered for something under $5 billion. you know that there is a significant price difference for the connection and the underground tunnel. the number being carried by the authority within their budget is a three track system. the $1.5 billion is a target number that we believe is possible to achieve by reducing it from three tracks the two tracts, with ultimate alignments for the projects. it must be borne out in further strikes.

looking at a writer ship comparison, the 2012 high speed rail authority business plan forecast writer ship in the central valley at only half of a million boardings per year. high-speed rail boardings on the peninsula were at a little over three per year. cal train is estimating in 2030 on the order of 20 million. i totally demonstrating that the corridor provides a writer ship much more likely to generate particularly private sector interest in these early start projects. cal train is currently doing a capacity study looking at the art of the possible in combining both cal train and high-speed trains and the infrastructure

required to support it. even with no passing tracts in each direction to be accommodated, passing as many as 10 trains per hour, they could be accommodated. to support the efforts of the working group in looking at fast start, the authorities undertook a feasibility study. the purpose of the study is to establish reconnaissance levels on the project, bucking an alternative delivery method for the project, as well as alternative alignments, as well as alternative funding sources. that study is nearing completion. it is undergoing review by the participating agencies within the working group.

coming to the next step, the working group will continue to support caltrans and its analysis. there are members of the working group that are part of the stakeholder groups to complete this work. completing the fast start feasibility study, we tend to work with local interests and high-speed rail authorities to develop an implementation plan for fast start. working to promote consensus amongst san jose, san francisco, and other peninsula interests. in summarizing, saying in as much as san francisco supports a high-speed rail, in is generally supportive of the plan developed by the authority, we think that

there are areas for improvement. the current plan provides service to san francisco until 2034. there is no service to trans day. they do not have a realistic funding plan. the fast start project has a new approach to chemlawn services quickly and provide service in high riders areas and we believe it is more financially feasible. we would be happy to take any questions. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. any additional comments? >> if i may, mr. chair, to sum up -- we are talking about a concept that can be four times cheaper, generating 40 times more riders ship, being built one decade earlier. we do not have all the answers

today, but at the very least we think it is worth looking at in more debt. the other thing i wanted to point out was echoing what the commissioner said before. these are projects that literally require commitment. the reason for that is that one of the opportunities that opens up, when we talk about something like this, is the opportunity for private sector investments. bringing the costs down, making them more feasible, the possibility of doing public- private partnerships, where not only are the design and construction methods different, there is a state of the art level that can be done. and the private sector can be relied upon to come in and invest private capital. not huge amounts, but enough to make these improvements feasible.

given the challenges that we have with the state level and the federal level, it is something to be considered. supervisor wiener: thank you for pushing forward on the fast track option. there is a lot to be said for it. i also want to invite the office of economic work force development to briefly address land use issues. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here today to build off of the points made by the transit authority. i appreciate the comments made about public-private partnerships. specifically, our office looks forward to working closely with the working group on developing strategic land use, public finance, and joint development plans to accompany whenever the final strategy is. the primary goal of the plan

would be to improve feasibility and identified revenue to support the budget that such a solution would entail. specifically, there are three ways that we seek to do that that can be outlined here, briefly. the first is a strategy to maximize possible future sources for public financing with fast- track, infrastructure costs. in addition to increment, with a variety of assessment districts to supplement those funds, as well as identifying significant public-private partnerships, to contribute toward fast-track infrastructure costs. there could be a situation where a public-private partnership that builds the facilities.

third, consistent with the proceeding goals, maximizing opportunities in and around future high-speed rail future stations or facilities. to make sure that san francisco achieves its neighborhood and environmental objectives. this reinforces those goals. what, specifically, would a strategic plan look like? the first component of the plan, working with the working group, would be to identify a creative inventory of potentially -- of public and privately owned fast sites for station areas. second, we would study a range of highest and best use areas or those opportunities sites. third, we would project values

based on those scenarios. fourth, we would project revenue streams and financing options to supplement the budget. once we have that fourth outcome, we can start to do cost-benefit analysis, so that we do not just look at engineered solutions, but also side-by-side solutions to see how much it can contribute to solving the budget gap. i want to emphasize that the office looks forward to working closely with the working group. community stakeholders involved in the process, as we look to make sure that some form of high-speed rail becomes feasible, sooner rather than later. >> -- supervisor wiener: in the working group, one of the things we have been working on for that at year is trying to have more and more collaboration amongst

the the different agencies, internal to the city, as well as an external, with better coordination and all of that. the mayor's office, the trans bay joint powers authority, with representatives of those agencies being here -- if any questions come up. if i could just -- there has been reference to various alignments that have been discussed. different land use possibilities. it is very important for us to know of these various alignments. what is feasible, and what are

the potential costs for revenue? i know that members of the working group may have different views about which alignment is preferable, of which ideas are preferable. i would be very interested in working with various members of the working group to analyze, for technical feasibility and cost, each of those options. about what is technically feasible, cost prohibitive, what is not, and generating the right amount of revenue. some of us look at an option and we think there is no way it could never work, but we have not done the technical feasibility study.

i would be very interested, perhaps, if the transit authority could take the lead, in doing those studies in working collaborative lead with theso i wanted to put that requt out there to you. >> supervisor wiener, we would be delighted to come back to you with more in-depth information on it that. there is a report from the work that the working group has been doing that will be available very soon, and it will have some of those answers. i wanted to clarify two things. first of all, that the discussion -- even if the discussion of alternative alignment is made possible by consideration of different construction techniques, particularly tunneling

techniques. when you choose to this and let the subway is doing now, to use a tunnel boring machine in go farther down, virtually under the foundations of big buildings and so on, that frees you up to do more thinking about where money can be saved and creating alignments that may be more direct, that may have geometry that is a better for trains and so on, and it ultimately saves not just construction, but operating costs. the other thing that is very significant in considering a different construction techniques, particularly techniques that involve boring machines, is that you can really cut down on the amount of time to accomplish the tunneling. we had a discussion today about second street. under the current plan, it is slated to be opened up in age range. so i big three-track title can be constructed there. so there are obviously other ways, and those are things that

we're looking at, that may open up both timeline savings. a huge amount of money saved in an escalation costs. and also, make the construction cheaper by itself. the other thing yes that in doing that, we may very well be able to free up land. perhaps even trains storage other land that is currently being used to read the current caltrain system in a traditional way, and we may be able to come up with something that is a breakthrough in that area. the key is to quantify that. the last point i will make on this is that the alignments that have been discussed so far were the result of a charade where everybody in the working group was involved and there were some

additional invited experts, and those alternatives that were discussed or that surfaced to the top were ones that were already seen as having the most promise in terms of cost reductions, in terms of freeing up land, and so on. but that is that a detailed analysis, and we need to do that. supervisor wiener: thank you for that explanation. i guess what i am wanted to know is i know that there are different alignments and options that the different agencies in the working group may think our best or not best, and what i would like to see is for the hsr working group, as a whole, which ta is part of, to sort of take the lead in studying each of those alignments and options, with the ta being in the best position to provide the technical support for the technical feasibility and costubg,

-- costing. i want to make sure that all the different alignments and options that are being suggested are studied and that we have the facts. and hopefully the answer will then become clear. but at least we will have the full information. i think that the hsr working group is the best vehicle to lead that, and the ta is in a unique position to provide the technical report to make sure we're judging the feasibility and the costs. does that make sense? >> perfect sense, and we're committed to doing that work and doing it as quickly as we can. you will be the body looking at the results, so we can have a proper public debate about what that might entail. i do want to caution that part of the attractiveness of a fast start project is the possibility to look at the

environmental studies that have already been done and completed. we have made and will continue to make the case to the authority that those projects are able to absorbable money right now, move forward, and of course, anything we do related to alignment, we need to understand the implications of that. but i am confident that we can probably overcome those issues and still keep the project is a front runner in terms of being able to move forward quickly. supervisor wiener: i agree that one of the factors that will come into play as we analyze the options is whether something will require an additional environmental review or increased costs. to me, it is important that we have all the information. the good, the back, the ugly as to each option. so that is my request of the ta staff. supervisor campos: supervisor wiener, i know we have a board

of supervisors meeting that is coming up. unless there is in its aborted the presentation, maybe we can open it up to public comment. but i do think it is really important for the ta to play that role and make sure they analyze every option, including those that may not seem as good or viable options on the service. i think is a good to have that information. thank you for raising that suggestion. i think it makes a lot of sense. unless there is anything else, let's open that up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. again, i would like to thank supervisor wiener and his staff. >> commissioners. some six months ago i was in washington, d.c., and as part of my deliberations over there, i met some key people who were not in favor of the light rail. and i made statements to this

effect, and i know mr. jose, you like to smile, and i caught you smiling. so let's keep smiling now with the further information i am going to give you. we put all our eggs in one basket, thinking the democrats would deliver the monies. this is not going to happen. and do not be foolish to think that this project, over $100 billion according to some estimates, and even $118 billion to complete it from san francisco to san diego, will be possible. many a times a conceptual plan is like a dream. he you wake up from your drink, and it could be our worst nightmare. having said that, jose, right in our backyard, we had the third street library, from a fourth and king to the middle of

nowhere in visitation valley. if we had a vision to take this grand central hub that we want to build at the transbay, to do all these fancy things, we could have started right in our backyard and done the right thing. so the fast track concept looks to be a viable model or project in the interim. but we still have to figure out how are we going to fill that big hole that is a transbay? where are we going to get all the moneys? and when i travel in my various travels all over the world, there are trains and systems that are much more efficient than we have had here in california.

finally, let me make a few comments about the mayor's office of economic development, trying to bring models like ifd's and tax increments, trying to figure out how land by the tracks can be zeroed in it to make money. we need to be very leary of goldman sacks -- goldman sachs, j.p. morgan chase, and in the private side of the enterprise that we deem and we think may help us when they had felt as in recent history. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, a commission. joe boss. about a year-and-a-half ago, i helped put together what we called the stakeholder, and it

consisted of people in mission bay, people who own property in a showplace square, potrero hill, and so forth. it also included ucsf, the redevelopment agency commissioned a development, and we had a couple of very good meetings. the whole focus was -- we also had neighborhood stakeholders, people who live there in that area. john ram put together a very good team with josh riskey and greg. and our whole purpose was to say that the raley joint -- real authority in the joint -- and this, that, the other thing are here, and we realize what the impact our and realize how important is to get it right. and i really cannot emphasize

that, as much as ta it is important and so forth, i think you need to circle back to the stakeholder group that was really helpful in putting the whole thing together. they were 40 people that took part, and it included, like i said, the port. everyone that was enacted. well you do something with the rail, you might upset with the port's raley dark, unless you're very careful about it. so we had all sorts of people in this group with a lot of institutional knowledge and history, and i invite you to have that sort of a meeting. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> that afternoon. my name is occurring in woods. i chaired the mission bay

citizens advisory committee. the read the ballot agency. which is going to survive, but we do not know who we are going to be advising. i was part of that working group, the stakeholder group that mr. boss mentioned. . as you saw in the presentation today, there are really serious implications for mission bay, depending on how these things are done. mission bay is already isolated by freeway, by water by the train tracks. and a year-and-a-half later, we do not see that anybody has looked at that were considered at in these fast track ideas. we would very much appreciate any potential solutions that you

guys come up with, you bring back to us, to the stakeholder group, who are, as mr. boss said, on the ground. we really understand what the issues and implications are. we know that potential solutions, a short tunnel, a long tunnel, taking down 280, as possible solutions are going to be extremely expensive. but they are extremely important. and we would like to be at the table. as you move forward. mr. ram has the list of all the people who were involved in these earlier meetings, or i am sure mr. bawsca and provide them. -- mr. abbas can provide them. we have heard nothing.

and we do not want you guys moving forward with solutions that you cannot back out of. unless we are at the table. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. robert beck with the transbay joint powers authority. i want to thank the sfcta and the mayor's office of for establishing and leading the technical group to affirm the city's support of the transbay transit center at the only acceptable terminus for high- speed rail in san francisco. we welcome the end of the city on alternative strategies to fully fund the dtx. the city has been instrumental in funding the development of the transbay program throughout its life, beginning with the cooperative agreement with caltrans, the commitment of funding for proposition k, the transit center district planning that has been prepared by the planning department, and the

preservation of the transbay we developed area with the bodies of the redevelopment agency. the full funding of the dtx and completion will require a complete support from the mayor's office, the ta, the board of supervisors, and city departments. on the consideration of an additional opportunities to reduce costs for the transbay program, we're excited about working with the ta on ways of optimizing the scope and cost of the downtown extension. the current alignment of the dtx is the result of more than a decade of the engineering study and environmental review that was culminated in our eir adopted in 2005. i think it is important, as jose luis mentioned, the context of considering alternatives that will not distract from the

current status of the program as ready and able to accept funding and move forward into a construction should and additional funding becomes available in the near term. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am wearing two hats today. a bart director representing much of the city, as well as livable city. i have to say, this is the most exciting project that has come to the city in a generation i need transportation area. it is a tremendous opportunity for san francisco, because it can provide at least two things. what is this high-speed rail connection between los angeles, the place where i was born, and san francisco, so i will not have to fly southwest anymore. the other thing is that this is going to create a rapid transit line for the eastern neighborhoods of san francisco. unlike part, but better. i say this is a budget director. it is going to be better because with this three and four

tracks system, you do not have to make the compromise that barred bus, which is having lots of stations and having faster express service. you can run a complex, like the baby bullet, but there is a local service, local rented transit service going up and down the east side of san francisco. a lot of people get to san jose in 30 minutes and still allow high-speed trains to come to san francisco. in prop k, we talked about an oakdale station to serve downtown bayview. we can look at adding or relocating the other stations along the east side of san francisco to reserve neighborhoods like mission bay, make them really transit- oriented. a station at 16th street, for example, to connected to use cfs -- ucsf medical center. i am excited about the blvd. alternative but i think we should be bolder. we should look at getting rid of more of