to you, supervisor, for all the work that has been done so far. of course, thank you for everything that is about to happen, as this board takes action in this process moves forward. the best credit he suggested so far is this concept of a fast start program with the caltrans electrification program, eventually finishing at the trans bay transit center. it is of utmost importance to all of those. this, ultimately, when it is all billed out, but be a transformative project for the city in the state. we have milestones coming in the future. the mayor appreciates the work done towards those milestones on developing alternatives. we have an opportunity to strengthen, as we consider alternative partnerships in the region, with cities and

communities to the south. also, partnerships between community members. this is a system that serves writers all over the state and region. leveraging those partnerships with the private sector will be the key to success. this is how you capture the energy, resources, and expertise to make this a joint effort and high-speed rail system. ultimately, there is a bit of work that needs to be done to consider those choices that we have to make. again, thank you for the work that has been done. with that, i think i will hand it over to your executive director. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you,

mr. elliott. commissioners, we have a presentation that we would like to share with you. talking about a fast start concept. i do not want to take much time at all. the executive director has been leading the working group, and before he takes it away, i would like to, in a manner of framing the issue, say the following thing. i think everything has been said by the mayor's office and the commissioner. we all need to be reminded that in the next 40 years, california will add 20 million inhabitants to the current 40 million. we are adding a number of people to the state of pennsylvania, on top of the people already

living in california. what appears to me to be outlandish is to try to do that without a transformative project like high-speed rail. we are all understanding now, not just in san francisco, but the local communities, a need for alternatives and transportation, saving us from the consequences of having to drive everywhere. we cannot do that without a major commitment at the state level without investment in infrastructure. lands that are grown from the grass roots up. that is why it is so important that the commissioner has taken the initiative to make sure that san francisco is a leader again in creating a regional movement that supports a high-speed rail the right way, in a way that does not create a situation where the best is the enemy of

the better. we can have high-speed rail in sentences go for the next 18 years, without giving away the farm. with that, i will take a second to wrap up the presentation. let me turn this over. thank you. >> good afternoon, mr. chair. in the deputy director for the capital project authority. i will be presenting the update on the high-speed rail project this afternoon. but a couple of items. first of all, a brief overview of the high-speed rail plan. and a description of the workings of the san francisco high-speed technical working group and its interaction with a high-speed rail authority.

some highlights from the 2012 business plan, released by the high speed rail authority and implications for san francisco and a description for the proposal that has wound up as the fast start project, a way that we believe will bring high- speed rail to san francisco more quickly than currently called for in the business plan, identifying immediate next steps. looking of the overall plan, ultimately the plan is to provide high-speed rail service from san diego to downtown san francisco, as well as connections to sacramento. phase one, often referred to as the basin project, connecting los angeles to the san francisco bay area and, eventually, san francisco. the peninsula segment of the plan is anchored by stations in

san jose, with options for intermediate changes between the two. as has been mentioned by others this morning, san francisco has long been a proponent of high- speed rail in california. the city is the only entity within the nation that has committed personal, direct local funds to the construction of a high-speed rail system. $1.6 million to begin construction of phase one. it is to open in 2017. it is not only a dramatic architectural accomplishment, but it will provide connectivity to the regional and local bus system, with local activity presented to bart. phase two will connect regional

and inner-city high-speed rail systems within california. the san francisco high-speed rail working group was established two years ago, primarily to respond to challenges that were identified within the alternative analysis report that was released by the authority, calling for the construction of various options for high-speed rail within the states, specifically within the peninsula. the city has identified a number of concerns, with alternatives at the time identified specifically as the analysis that included options other than trans bag. the plan, as presented, provided significant impact at mission bay boulevard, with likely

impacts to the mission bay redevelopment area. providing reduced assets -- reduced aspects to mission bay itself, further impacting the stations at bay shore, because a planned maintenance facilities in the area. the high-speed rail working groups also served as a way of bringing multiple agencies within the city together to address issues and develop a coordinated city position, providing a venue for city agencies and departments to come together to develop these positions. membership includes the transfer a joint powers authority, -- trans bay joint power authority, including the office of

economic and workforce development, planning, public works, the redevelopment agency, and its successor -- the port of san francisco. of course, planning in the san francisco municipal transit agency. in the time that the working group has been under way, it has accomplished a number of things. it did establish an ongoing forum for coordination of the city activities regarding high- speed rail. it would dramatically improved high-speed rail authority authorization, so that they would be able to speak with all of the agencies in santa francisco. they were able to reaffirm the high speed rail authority, excepting the transit center as the ultimate terminus for the project.

we identified maintenance facilities at the bayshore station and established consensus for an operation to accommodate both cal train and high-speed rail operations on the peninsula. specifically, high-speed rail authority agreed to three options from the technical working group to agree with the option that 16th street. the three options developed by the working group involved placing high-speed rail and a short tunnels under 16th street. the graphic that you see, number one is short. it is slightly to that -- to the south, near mariposa. option number three includes

land use elements. it would involve a portion of the 282 freeway, as it terminates in the city, replacing it with a boulevard. the business plan from the high speed rail authority was replaced in november of 2011. it is -- it is the continuation of business plans that started in 2008. they are required to be the submitted comments on the business plan representing implant and suggestions from all of the agencies in which earlier this month, there are some highlights from the business plan. they reaffirmed the plan to 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 --