rail money that caltrain received -- is that all they needed to fully electrified? is it 70% of what they needed? >> this is $600 million that essentially completes the funding picture, but what we have pending -- there is a major commitment to making the extension top priority in the next generation of projects, but then we have to come up with more money and so on. commissioner wiener: any other questions? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> mr. chairman, i do have -- i think given the circumstances, i should at least give you a very quick briefing on the fact that congress has approved the

federal surface transportation act after nine extensions of the previous and several years of waiting, so kudos go to senator boxer, especially in the senate, for pushing this thing through. it is only a two-year extension, and there are some significant changes that happened as a result. i promise you a written and more detailed, more organized presentation for the board meeting this month, but i wanted to highlight at least that there are some fairly significant areas of change. the bill has been funded at levels very similar -- overall levels verisimilar to 2012, and it only covers 2013 and 2014 federal fiscal years. so we are talking about a

highway funding level close to the $40 billion range, and a transit funding level in the $8 billion or $9 billion a year range. what is different is that some programs have been consolidated. notably, there is a new alternatives program, which brings together what used to be transportation enhancements as well as safe routes to schools, regulation of trails, but facilities, and other things like turning lanes, boulevards, retrofits, and so on. these changes have not sat well with the advocacy community, because they do represent, by lumping them all together, a fairly significant decrease in

the total funding available for these programs. the funding is we would estimate about 30% lower. that is not good news for san francisco, which has always competed very well, particularly in terms of discretionary programs. furthermore, the funds for this new category are now divided 50/50 between a path that goes to mr. perot -- metropolitan planning organization, and the other half goes to the state dot, so the state can opt out of using that money for this purpose and pour it into road construction or maintenance or anything like that, so we will have an advocacy challenge their at the state level present -- preventing the state from opting out because it would be a further hit to the amount of money that is available. at the regional level, i am

trust and we will compete very well as usual. there's also a fair bit of reform intended to streamline and reduce the amount of time it takes for projects to clear federal environmental regulations. among those things, the bill has expanded fairly significantly the amount of delegation that the federal government can do to states. there really is kind of a pilot program with the federal government delegates on the state to be the executives, and we're talking now about including a rail, transit, and multiple projects among the projects for which the state can accept delegation. that should be interesting in terms of streamlining things. and then there is another thing that is fairly significant, which is there is a categorical exclusion now for projects that are happening within an existing

operating right of way. and then projects that receive less than $5 million in federal funds and where federal funds are less than 15% of total cost are also categorical exclusion. i am not terribly concerned about any weakening of the federal environmental protection statutes because we have such a strong environmental protection law in california, but there's something to be said for what happens for states that do not have the general protection. the other area where there are very major changes this year -- this is the infrastructure fund that is facilitating the financing of projects like transbay -- the program has grown enormously at something like 400%. from the $120 million we had in 2012, we are jumping to $750 million, and there is a pretty

clear recognition in that context of the importance of bringing in the private sector. several provisions that make it easier to deal with public/private partnerships, and also a significant expansion of the ability of the state to add will see any federal aid facility. those are significant highlights. one negative -- the facilities program is being funded at less than half the size it has now. that will be an issue for us. and the new starts program is also being streamlined, and now it includes provisions that emphasize core capacity projects that at least a 10% decrease in capacity. it will be interesting to see how the program is managed. there are several areas where

program management is being proposed revisited. for example, they're no longer will be the program we have today, the guidelines and so on. there will essentially be a rolling application process, and as long as there's money in the bank, projects will have to be considered for funding. there is a relaxation of the financial criteria where they would be subordinate to private debt, which is complete opposite of what we have now. we will have to see whether the program moves forward and whether it becomes a way to streamline the program or whether time goes up in more discretionary positions at the federal level. that is a very quick summary. i would be happy to answer questions, but more likely, i am offering new -- promising you a written summary of this for a board meeting. commissioner wiener: thank you.

colleagues, any questions? any public comment for the addendum? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move on to item three. excuse me, four. >> item four, recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the treasure island development authority in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the fiscal year 2012/2013 operating budget and work plan to implement the treasure island transportation program and authorizing the executive director to negotiate the agreement terms and conditions. >> we are seeking the authority to execute an agreement with the treasure island development authority to implement the treasure island transportation plan. the 2008 california state assembly bill 981 authorized the board of supervisors to designate an agency to act as the transportation management agency for treasure in and --

treasure island and to be responsible for implementing the very innovative transportation plan for the island, which centers on using fees generated on the island to deliver the multi modal transportation system to and from the island. in 2008 of last year, the tida board and authority board recommended that the board of supervisors designate the transportation authority as the treasure island mobility transportation agency. in december last year, the board executed an agreement to carry out pre-implementation activities, leading up to the designation of an agency as the tima as well as fund raising and other pre-implementation activities. this agreement would extend or renew our agreement for fiscal year 2012-2013, including the scope of work that would

initiate the conceptual design and preliminary engineering, and includes a budget which is funded by contributions from tida, which provides a local match to priority development grant, which provides the bulk of the funding for the work, and we were the top-ranked program. i am happy to answer any questions. commissioner wiener: thank you. are there any questions, colleagues? comments? seeing none, is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to for this? colleagues, can we do that without objection? that will be the order. next item. >> 5, introduction of new items. this is an informational item. commissioner wiener: any introductions? seeing none, public comment?

public comment is closed. next item. >> item 6, public comment. commissioner wiener: any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> item 7, adjournment. commissioner wiener: we are adjourned.

on may 12, sf posted a benefit for project insight. canadians supported the recreation programs are too sick children. >> learn more

>> the question when i started 11 years ago when i started doing resolution work is can anything be presented on a really low resolution device where it is potentially a digital image? can anything be presented that way? or will it feel cold and electronic? >> the imagery will change. there will be four different sets. it is a two dimensional image. it is stretched out into three dimensions. the device is part of the experience. you cannot experience the image

without the device as being part of what you are seeing. whereas with the tv you end up ignoring it. i make gallery work more self and budget and public art work where i have to drop this of indulgence and think about how people will respond. and one of the things i was interested in the work and also a little fearful of, it is not until you get to the first and second floor were the work is recognizable as an image. it is an exploration and perception is what it is. what are you seeing when you look at this image? one of the things that happens with really low resolution images like this one is you

never get the details, so it is always kind of pulling you in kind of thing. you can keep watching it. i think this work is kind of experience in a more analytical way. in other words, we look at an image and there is an alice going on. -- and there is an analysis going on.