>> there is a cutter of the process and the maybe, the bay bridge construction that makes that cut over able to happen to the minimal destruction to the cal train which would be great. and with regard to the budget, and i think that we definitely need to dig into that and as we did recently for phase one, and but we are in a much better and earlier point to understand what some of those assumptions, and in the budget are, and i think that it is good to start about refreshing those numbers and bearing out those assumptions. and then, i guess, finally, we seem to get a pretty big focus on delivery method and particularly a specific delivery method. and we saw all of the benefits of a p3, but there was no discussion of potential down sides or trade offs and i think

that maria barlow's cautions were important and it may well be that this was ideal p3 project but i don't think that we got it really frankly very balanced presentation and on the p3 and it was just all candy and ice cream, and it is cheaper and faster and less risk. but, some of the things that would be buying, we need to pay for and we need to pay for someone to finance. we can expect that they will be in the future and we will be paying for the maintenance there and we will be paying to shift the risk and i think that we need a more balanced discussion and it sounded like six slides were just highlights of the indepth analysis and it would be great if you could share that analysis with the

board and with the public.. >> this is occurring to p3 and why to design and build the incentives, and for expedited schedule and delivery and i agree that probably shifting somewhere down that. and i think that it is a big decision and i think that we should spend some time, and we should spend some time on that. you have the environmental review complete, but it is maybe up 30 percent design shovel ready and i think that is a bit, misleading and

usually you have the documents done and 30 percent is where you will be ready for the design build, and i just, i don't think, that we are quite there. and even a bigger picture and delivery and maybe the joint dlir delivery with the high speed rail and i think that when you kind of you have got tjpa extending from there downtown and then you have the high speed rail over there and three different entities kind of working and kind of in the same space for the same systems and i think that it is great. and again, i will just concur with the director metcalf that i think that it was a great

presentation and to start surfacing all of these things and maybe, in each of our subsequent meetings we can drill down on one aspect of this, and really, and there is no bigger transportation project that is more important to san francisco than getting this tunnel built and getting the train service to the transbay. and so i am happy to see it moving forward now. >> thank you, director. >> director lee? >> and so i will be respectful as possible, and i am filling in for director lloyd and so i kind of feel like i should draw my box a little bit. i do feel like i need to say a few things, at the staff level, that we met with a tjpa and we have not brought this to the board, but the staff level, there is excitement for any efforts to try and advance the dtx, because we would like to

bring our trains to ttc. and that is that we are striving for, and with our context, and a few things, that i think were highlighted in the presentation, is sort of, there is consensus to invest in a decision, and because we don't have the money for everything and for the gpd perspective, the immediate commitment to cal train electrickfiation is important and that is the policy through the board and where we are to have the electrified cal train service by 2019 and that service is to fourth and king as long as the dtx is not yet in place. and so, that commitment is important and i need to highlight that. and but having said that, also,

in that mlu. is a commitment to the next incremental investment which is a blended system with the priority to the dtx project and i think that what is interesting, over the last couple of months, and maybe about a year. and it is after we got on board with the blended system. and there has been a need to talk about and a need to revisit a lot of things and because for a long time, we were planning for a high speed rail system that was a fully separate system. and so, when you design around that concept, and then you go from that to a system which is the blended system you have to revisit a lot of the assumptions and how you kill design things and i think that this is very timely and cal train, staff, is resourcing up to help, with this partnership, and i do want to mention to other things with laying out

the theme of the incremental investment. the p3, concept, and i would definitely join with the rest of the board members that when we look at the feesbility of it, and that we really it will be a hefty due diligence and it is because we are so complicated because you have got the cal train and it is the live revenue service and you have got the extension with the cpc and you have the fourth and sing interest and there are so many pieces going on that you can't relate it at all to a green field version p3 project and then there are the difference between the row p3 and it is just so complicated and so we are excited to look at the potential, with the dpx and whatever benefit cans come out of it, and it is fantastic against the risks associated

with the p3 because man if you mess up you can mess up really bad and so we are, excitesed to do that, and evaluation. and in addition to that, we do need help in figuring out, how to do all of this, with all of the interests of san francisco, and the development and fourth and king, and we have had a lot of discussion on that effort itself. but it does tie into all of this in a different timing so, i am stocked up on aspirin pills and i really am excited to have this hefty discussion but there is great potential there and we are looking forward to the partnership. >> thank you, director harper? >> yes, i concur a great deal with the directors on this and i think that you know the oldest saying, you know, if something sounds too good to be true it may not be. and it is with what the shift a

lot of risk to a private company and to except to have so many savings because that company can do so much better than you can and so much more efficiency and so that it can accept that risk and save you money in the process and that takes a lot of digging, you know, as it has been said and we have got to do that and i really do second, look at this, i think, too that a big factor no matter what we do in this is what is going to happen to the new starts after october, 2014. and there is, i mean, already new starts took a hit on the first sequestration and it looks like it will take a hit in january 15th of the second goes in and new starts is one of those things that will be very easy for the congress to

really tighten the noose around and i think, that if it comes together, or it comes into getting any kind of transportation, extension, in place, especially given all of the faa stuff that has to be done. and so, i think that there is a lot of things to look at here and i will say too, that when it comes to and i have always thought that when it comes to phase two, i will almost completely defer to cal train, because that is really so, so, integral, to the other things that director lee talked about just going on with them. that i, you know that i am going to be passive in the whole thing because my gosh, you know, it is, it is your whole life and you know, phase one was mine. and so at this point, i mean, i am going to say okay, i am going to listen to other people that have as much interest in phase two and if i didn't phase one, and this is something and, phase two is very important, and this is the thing that

makes the transit station work and no question. and with the high speed rail being a big question mark all the way around. and i think that there is just going to be a lot of thoughts that have to be given to all of this. thank you, director. >> i will actually a lot of the comments that i want to make were already made and so that i think this is a really great beginning of the discussion. and i certainly agree with directors that i think that this is a good opportunity to maybe plan the next two or three board meetings. to kind of drill down on different individual items so one, being one with the planning department to talk about the rail yard and of course, cal train as well and also to have a conversation about the design and the alignment and i was a little surprised to hear the term shovel ready several times about the dtx because i think

that we are pretty far, this was put into place many years ago and we need to redust it and look at again and examine whether if there are more cost effective designs and alignments, on four, gtx and now that we are kind of several years after and there are a lot of different factors and circumstances and a lot of changes in the development, here in san francisco. and so, i think that it is important to have that conversation. and i agree about having a deeper dive into the p3 as our presenter and has stated that it is hard to go over in six slides, but it is a good, high level overview. and i actually one of my big questions are what are the projects that didn't work. and so it is great to see the examples of where there are

huge cost safe ands a very successful project but where were the projects that didn't succeed that used this model and kind of getting a sense of the types of projects that are appropriate, and the different types of pt project and how it will be appropriate for dtx but i think that it is an important option to explore. and certainly, if there are substantial cost savings, this will be a route that will be very exciting. and the last of the piece course, of course, the piece that i probably have the most questions about are the potential funding sources, and i agree that it is a fairly rosy list and i know that the city is currently just begun our deeper discussion in terms of our long term transportation funding plan, and we actually have the chair and the co-chair of the mayor's transportation traffic force, for 2030 and i

know what has currently the sales tax revenue that was put into place in this presentation is not consistent with the discussion in the task force, but the task force is also beginning this dialogue as a report to the board of supervisors and now, i think that that will be another lengthy discussion in terms of what we are looking at in terms of our over all plan of how we fund the transit, and the public transit and the bike ped needs throughout the city and i know that the mayor's budget office, also, has not begun, its efforts to solve for the funding gaps for dtx as well and i know that they are very interested in being engaged in this discussion and so there seems to be perhaps, three different areas that we can just particularly focus on over the next couple of board meetings. and in the winter. and january 3, april. and we can kind of begin figuring out the best ways to figure out how to have the deeper discussions but phase

two is absolutely where this board wants to really be delving into and so i appreciate that we were able to begin to have this conversation today. and also, just acknowledging that there are so many partner and agencies, both in the city, and of course, regionally. and so i am going to propose that over the next couple of months and we are not seeming in december, but that we examine the issues and so if the board members have feedback on how to see that move forward i am happy to take those comments and feedback. seeing no further comments from the board members i will open it up for public comment. >> so i am so glad that we started a conversation, and i

really appreciate all of the comments that the board made, and it is no need for me to echo them. and actually there one exception, and i will close up with that. once i am really glad that we have actually, you look at that slide and at least, it was sufficient from these sources, and to complete the central subway all the way up to embarcadero and all the tunnel all wait to oakland and connect the turner to the east bay. and but, but what they really like us moving forward. and if the modeling is the capacity. but we need to come up with a model that demonstrates that we were support a minimum of 12 trains coming in and out of the terminal an hour tha, is on phase one. and the last point that i like to touch on in closing is that i respectfully have agreed with that director lee with regards to the requirement of the

electric..., and you don't for the same reason that he should look at the trying to drive from san francisco to la it will die on i5 somewhere, but if you are driving a chevy volt it does not. >> there is a generator that kicks in there and you have the exact same technology with the trains and so if a train at some point for whatever reason, loses power, it is called a bi mode and, there is a technical term and it is this generator that kicks in and takes the train to the final destination, that you are going to meet in case you have a power failure and what is needs electrifying right now is dtx and then, we will talk about the rest of the system, but in the meantime we will bring it in right now and all of the identification, thank you. >> thank you.

>> is it... >> if they are any other members of the public that would like to speak on this line up please. >> good morning board members, dena friends with cal train and i am glad to see this discussion, opening up from the perspective of cal train riders, and the dtx and connecting to downtown, and all of these things considered. sooner is better. and looking at dates that we can see, is just really, fantastic thing, and with all of the things to consider. and the board members have brought up, and we are looking at and so on on the capacity

issue, and agreeing on the blended system, was a great way that does impose the capacity limitations in doing