begin construction on the system, what they referred to as the initial construction section within the central valley. the initial operating section, the one to carry actual passengers, could be in the north or the south. it connects the southern valley and provided before when he 34. i just for wheat -- group -- completed a review of the business plan and i will look at highlights from the analysts review. we did take note that the new delays for the overall system.

additional concerns from the legislative analyst's office included the fact that committed funding had not been identified for the project. that environmental reviews, to meet the schedule laid out by the authority, would have to be completed by 2012, which seems extremely ambitious. there is really no funding available to complete the initial operating segment, southern or northern. questioning the analysis of prospective benefits and costs to the overall system. san francisco also had some concerns with the plan. notwithstanding the fact that we are supporters of high-speed rail, we did think that there were aspects in which it could be strengthened.

both of the options identified for the initial operating segment for connecting low rider ship areas, which we thought was not the optimum way to begin this. but the database that -- the day to basin service would not provide any connection into san francisco. the service, ultimately, into san francisco in 2034 would only go to a temporary station at fourth in king street. there was no commitment within the plan to ever make a connection to translate. the statements in the business plan, but sums up many of the concerns that we have, is that the schedule that is laid out, even though it would not provide

real services to the city until 2034, they can only be achieved if the funding was available at the time the construction was started. the high-speed rail authority has, in essence, declared that it is on schedule and not achievable. some additional concerns that san francisco had with the plan. we know that the plan calls for spending $25 billion before the first passenger boards by high- speed train. we think that it is likely that the taxpayers may become impatient and wanting to see high-speed rail service before that level of funding is extended. although the fanned put -- the plan replaces blending operations in incorporates caltrans, it does so using essentially it will build out.

rather than at lower cost version of the blended operations implemented quickly, the version promoted by high- speed rail would call for the construction of a system on the peninsula. we believe that as it is proposed for the initial operating segment with low rider ship, the plan as some might bid to attract private investment. the proposal that the tentacle working group has been developed, we think that is a way to initiate near-high-speed rail service virtually now. the elements have either been environmentally cleared or are close to be environmentally cleared. these can be concurrent with construction in the central valley. so, there is no direct threat to this plan and sequencing.

it provides an early high-speed rail experience that we think is extremely useful in exposing people to the ideas and advantages of high-speed rail. it provides the best chance for high-speed funding, as there is service in high-density corridors with high riders ship, there for generating a significant amount of revenue. it presents agreement regarding high-speed rail service. it wouldn't involve two existing projects. the electrification of cal train, something that has been being worked on for awhile, and the tunnel connection between the fourth of king street to the

transit center. they would also provide a limited infrastructure to better accommodate high-speed rail. as well as some bank of passing track to accommodate the different speeds. the main feature attraction power is to support electric trains. the downtown extension project is about a 1.3 you -- 1.3 mile long tunnel that is intended to provide high-speed rail access. it does a number of things that allow for the early delivery of high-speed rail services to san francisco.

it provides high rat -- high writer ship to the business plan. we believe it could be a model within california. we think it has the potential of making better use of the funding than the other options might. the comparison of a fast start to the center column, the 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