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 interstate 280. this is the southern embarcadero freeway. we talked of two sections, and then we don't all the traffic down on to sixth street and on to the embarcadero, where it forms in the barrier. weekend and into the all city back together at the street level. mission bay with soma, birch river district with the central waterfront. we should look ahead boulevard

alternative the beginneth cesar chavez, terminating the freeway there. it could be a lot cheaper. if you bring the train underneath and but the freeway of above, it means you have to dig under the freeway. it gets expensive because you are shoring up the said acquitted freeway while trying to put a train line underneath. removing the freeway can make the whole thing to ever give up and look forward to this discussion and some kind of public process. this is the biggest infrastructure project we have ever had. there has been in the zero public participation. we really need to think about a public engagement strategy for this project, to let folks know what the options are and what the implications are. [bell rings] supervisor campos: thank you very much. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i want to

thank all the presenters and members of the public uk. i want to thank mustaf for putting this hearing together. colleagues, thank you for the indulgence this is incredibly important, so i think this was a productive beginning to any discussion today. with that, mr. chairman, i move to continue this to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you, chair. i think it is good that we initiate this conversation here. certainly, this is of great import to san francisco in the future of high-speed rail. i think if we were going to continue this conversation, i would prefer to continue its in plans and programming. i would like to see if we can

actually modify the motion to do that. >> i agree. supervisor campos: ok, so we have a motion to continue. supervisor wiener: send it back to plans and programs to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: we have a motion in the second. i want to thank all members of the public who have been waiting for this item, and thank you to commissioner wiener and his staff for making this a priority. can you call item number 10? >> number 10, introduction of new items, information items. supervisor campos: colleagues, do you have new items you like to introduce? is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? the seeing none, public comment is closed. please call the next item. >> item 11, public comment. supervisor campos: an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that

is within the jurisdiction of the commission, but it is not on the agenda today. is there any member of the public like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 12, adjournment. supervisor campos: before we go, i want to thank the members of the sfgtv staff who have been covering the meeting today. thank you for your service. meeting adjourned.