i am happy to report that the approval of the bonds in november, just recently, san francisco share of the 60 million dollars is seems secured. and it is also, knowing that i recently updated, scheduling and the budget, and appears that it is going to be something now. increase of 249 million, to 306 million dollars and right now, cal train staff, is looking at mitigation measures and analyzing those before making the recommendation to the board. and that is why we are still counting the old budget. and again here, is the current approved funding debt which will also have to be amended, once, the budget itself gets

approved, and the funding sources identified. the program is under way and it is going very well, and you can see it by itself and it is design build and it is basically spending permission by 2015 and accept in 2016 and it is under construction already and so, it is moving quite well. and the portion of it and the environment of it is expecting the summary, and it is the big issue already. and it is to be a design build. and again, we are mentioning here that it is scheduling for 2019 but the revised scheduling and updated schedule, indicates that it might be winter and 2020, and spring of 2021. and as far as it goes, this have request for the proposal

is in the spring of 2015, and the position of the compatibility and it is reached with dissipated in the spring. and later, and the index of the item that includes, funding, and the funds have to be used only for the procurement process, and for the rfp, and it is not going to be used for the actual purchase of the vehicles. we have the electromagnet and the special condition and that right and an inch of that working room and in the light party mlu. and on progress of the discussions and related to the compatibility. the cal train they have an agency wide role for the participation, and up until now, they have not had published specific goals but

the specific goals, and it is the participation for the fiscal year of 4040 was 8 percent and cal train is not working on the different types and the public, and the specific goals to remedy that shortfall. and just on december fourth, the gop adopted a 5.2 percent goal for electricfication. there are two challenges as we see them right now in this project and a lot of challenges but two of them are the first one is that the projected increase is going to require the funding partners to work closely to identify with those sources with funds and to develop to secure them. and the second one is that compatibility. and as i am sure that you are all aware, and the cal train's positions on it and the electric grill cars will effect

the service and the condition for a long time to come. and the cal train and has been and it has the meters to resolve the compatibility issues and i am happy to report that we are partially optimistic that they will be able to reach an agreement to call on the platform heights. and so as a matter of fact, yesterday, the land use committee of the board of supervisors conducted a hearing on compatibility, with respect to the participation of the djpa, cal train and the high speed rail and that concludes my presentation, any questions that you may have? >> commissioner kim? >> thank you. >> i was hoping that we could go back to the program funding by source. and you had said that san francisco contribution is 6 million dollars is that part of the member agency contribution?

what is the part for the city contribution for the entire program. >> off of the top of my head, 60 million, of 101.5 billion. i can do the math in my head, i don't know the percentage right now. >> okay. >> that is --. >> okay. >> and so, it is four percent. >> yeah, four percent, yes. >> sorry. >> and all right. >> is it, is the contribution break down at least locally and because i know that a number of the funding is coming at the state and federal level, is it roughly even between the three counties? >> yes. >> and i just want to understand, sorry, just the

page 2. what are the stations and the (inaudible) stations? >> repairing stations are for the signal system, to remain the signals. >> what does that mean, i am sorry. >> but you have, the (inaudible) a series of stations that have transmitted and the (inaudible). >> yeah. >> so, that is what they are. >> that is what a (inaudible) is? >> yes, what is a switching station then? >> it is to operate the switches. >> the switches that are for the tracks. >> okay. >> and so, >> so we have a cal train that can help that. >> and it is from cal train.

>> yeah. >> cal train --. >> so paralleling stations. >> it is complete because i applied for those. >> the paralleling station and switching stations are part of the electric part of, and they are the way side facilitis that help to regulate the energy throughout the corridor. >> okay. >> and so it is halfway facilities as well and so for those particular ones that is for the project. >> for the yellow dot in san francisco is that the fourth and king site or the transbay terminal site? >> it would be i would have to go and look at the exact position for it but it would be four and this king down to the line because this project is only from 4th and king down to santa fe. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> and just on the slide number six, he pointed out that there is a shortfall in the disadvantaged businesses and enterprise and participation but cal train is working on projects to meet the 12 percent participation goal, is that right? >> that is correct.

>> just to clarify, so that the number that we have selected for the project, that is the goal for that project and so it is a five percent goal. >> and most of and i am sorry, i missed this in the presentation. is most of the project cost increase just based on the usual increase in cost of construction that normally happens, this is not including potential cost increases if we look at kind of the vehicle alignment that we had talked about yesterday. >> that is correct. >> it is basically a lot of it is escalation and because originally the budget was developed in 2009 and so a lot of it is about 150 million dollars. but it is also a changing conditions in the construction industry. and yeah, and that kind. >> thank you. and building a project on top of an active (inaudible). >> thank you. and we have commissioner campos? >> thank you. >> if i may, thank you very

much, and if i may ask, how the cal train representatives come back up? >> i am sorry. >> and i just wanted to thank you for being here and i wanted to ask you if you could comment or provide a report on where things are on the issue of compatibility? >> and i would be happy to and it is a hot topic these days. and we have heard loud and clear that there is a great interest to understand this on a deeper level and what the trade offs are and what the implications are of going down. and we have been committed to working with high speed rail to do a deep dive on this issue to see if there are other vehicles that may be more appropriate that may have the compatibility of sitting at the exact same station at the same height and if we do go down that route, what are the cost implication and any impacts to service and what are the impacts to capacity and so we are going to layout the analysis that we are doing and we have committed to giving updates to the funding

partners on a monthly basis and also coming back to the policy makers to explain what that trade off is and so that everyone has a good understanding of what these different option cans bring and provide. and then in the springtime frame, asking our policy makers to make a decision and a policy recommendation on which vehicle to procure. >> so, when do you have a sense of what month we are talking about in 2015? >> right now, we have a loose framework and it is between march and may, 2015 that we hope to be able to come back. with the staff recommendations and also have that feedback with the policy makers and we do want to come back to all of the committees that are interested including the land use committee, to provide on those updates on this analysis, and these are the things that we are looking at and so everyone is informed as we go through that process. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for the presentations. >> let's open this up for public comment, is there anyone

that would like to speak? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. this was an information item. come forward. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, thank you so, and basically on the issue of compatibility, and i am pleased to inform you that what happened is that when the high speed rail authority did the system and the change specification for the train and so i have to have some good news for you very soon and the thing that i wanted to talk about today was to summarize the letter that i wrote to the cal train bolt and just touch on the issues and the solutions on both the budget and the schedule. the budget is not a full time account of it. and if you look at the schedule, that does not take and the electric for the city, and 160 miles of tracks in one year longer than it would be

for two miles of tracking in this case. the solution is something called 9 patrick train and we can go to it on you tube and i think that it will be the factory train (inaudible) if you do this, there are two things that are going to happen is first of all the costs and they are going to drop down to what is now close to 1 billion down to a transit million and the neck thing that is going to happen is that you should be able to do the entire line in two years. and in closing, the street car is faster and you should ask for the funding left over to replace the rest of the cal train, and you should be able to get 100 percent of electric. and last, but not least, you will be able to increase the dp participation for 5 percent or at least 15 percent, or higher.

because it is actually cannot actually with the precise stations thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other speakers? >> we are closing public comment. this was an information item. >> next item? >> item 8,recommend allocation of $872,859 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for geary bus rapid transit (brt) environmental review and initial construction phase improvements planning, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization program. this is an action item. >> kim? >> good morning, commissioners. this is for the summary of the request i just wanted to make a note that the number is different from what you have on the memo in the enclosure and we have received a request to pull the prop k request for the

east (inaudible) and so that it can have a little more time to review the scope to make sure that it is covered or also, considered the amendment that has been proved, and so excluding that, it is not, and we have received the requests combined over the four agencies for the -- (inaudible) and trying to be, and the one day, and the progress and the bicycle and -- and things to lease, for giving the up date on this program, and on this top request, is just simply, that this is the good year and the annual membership of san francisco for the improvement. and mta is requesting 20.8 million dollars to procure 60, (inaudible) coaches which have been in service since 1993 and they have received the end of

the life by 2009 and by 2006, prop k has the three years and 28 of those, and it is extending of those for life by five years and they are also, for now, in the replacement and the remanneder of those could have been retired and for this mta it has entered into the procurement with the county, and the (inaudible) and which enables both agencies the proceedings and faster turn around. and you can see the first speaker in by the everton and it is last schedule for november of 2016 and some will be used for the (inaudible). and for the next project, bart is requesting prop k funds for the year or the passage in the transbay and so you can see the bottom piblgts shows that the passengers will use in the case of an emergency and so in the prop k, we have the -- and to

apprise on the san francisco side of the two, out of 110 doors to get a replacement. >> and in the projects are the ones that we have fund in the project and the prop k that have the fundings and the prior and also as a match for them and is it is to usc for the next project and starting with the corridor improvement project and on this prior, based, and environmental, and so we are happy to see the going forward with the construction as many of you know that the divided highway running through, the park and it is the largest park in the south east part of the city and currently it is designed, primary for cars and without any pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities but as you can see on the slide this project will be forced to open by the bicycle improvements to the park and initially due to the funding and the improvements and the

improvements and the street projects will be implemented as part of two and however the timing of the parts have been successful in picturing the park and in the state or the grant to include those two, or the parts of this construction contract to be completed by august of 2016. (inaudible) sfmta and parks and permit. and the next two -- (inaudible) the school projects the first one on the san francisco public works is requesting prop k, for near the (inaudible) school and also adjacent to the (inaudible) library. and for, another, the next project near (inaudible) elementary school to construct rec and b and landscaping in the bay area and the school projects for the community completed by december of next

year. and the last projects are the projects of the initiative and and as commissioner are noted it is for the public or for the pedestrian bicycle for the double a and support for all to reduce the traffic that -- (inaudible) but we just make a special note of this project that, implement the elements of the 24, to your projects lists, and to implement the 24 projects, by january 2016. so the starting week of bicycle improvements on market street and for the prop k funds to (inaudible) bicycle or along market between (inaudible). it is just the extension of the green lanes and to the van ness

and (inaudible) and as part of this request there will be a new aid in the design and in the (inaudible) track. and then, in mta is requesting the prop k to continue the process at up to 94 intersections that are located along the pedestrian corridors as item is in the first and in the -- and this natural locations at red dots and also it is and can be found on page 104 of the enclosure. and there are mta is requesting prop a request for the (inaudible) at sections on the (inaudible) which is a high corridor. and it is designed to be completed by 16, and with that project sponsors here to answer your questions. >> i think that we just wanted

to ask one about the 60 foot buses replacing the old 1993 ones. i know that brt will get some of them and is there any chance that the limited that runs through a number of our districts might have access to some of that fleet at some point? >> i have been continuing and answer the question. >> good morning, (inaudible) from the mta, and we generally have flexibility in our fleets so that our buses can be spread throughout the various sides, and i believe that this procurement is just for the 60 foot coaches ask at present, we use 40 foot coaches on the line, but as part of the future contracts with the new 40 foot

coaches it is possible. >> and thank you. >> and i know that kim mentioned market street, and the track and i know that we are anticipating the masonic boulevard and potential trek and i am just wondering, that this is important but if it is a bit of a different style, and could you explain a little bit about the different styles of the cycle tracks. >> i was just in your city seeing some of them in the zero vision planning. >> this is something that we are traying it is a raised track and so it is elevated from the roadway and it provides more visibility and protection for the cyclists. and also this project is to as a pilot to see how it works and helps to develop the design specifications where we roll it out in the other parts of the city and i believe that the masonic project is designed to be a track. >> we know that some of the planning that some were erased

that tends to be safer, and i am wondering if the lessons learned from market street, will be applied to kind of a (inaudible) plan. >> sure, i would imagine that we ko take that into account. >> very good. >> thank you. >> any other questions, colleagues? >> thank you, let's open this up for public comment, i see, no public comment cards, anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion on this action item? >> we have a motion and a second. roll call. >> and we have again, there was amended version of it, to pull out the one project from the mta. and so we have the revised recommendation and action on that. and roll call. >> on the motion to amend item 8. commissioner breed? >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar >> aye >> lee.

>> aye. >> thank you. >> motion passes. >> please call the next item. >> the roll call vote? >> on the amended item? >> item 8, recommend allegation of recommend allocation of $872,859 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for geary bus rapid transit (brt) environmental review and initial construction phase improvements planning, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization program. >> on the item as amended. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye >> mar. >> aye. >> yee. >> aye. >> the item is passed amended. >> please call the next item.

>> item nine. recommend allocation of $872,859 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for geary bus rapid transit (brt) environmental review and initial construction phase improvements planning, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization program. >> this is on page 53, for the geary transit, it is in the environmental review phase and the transportation is in close coordination with the sfmta and recognize tanner from the sfmta in the audience and can answer the questions as well. in my item today i will discuss a project up date over all for the full project as well as for the initial construction phase new term improvements that we have justified and allocation request, and just, note that there is some related actions that the finance committee did today, and including a memo for the agreement for the sf planning department and professional services contract modification and just in the background, this project is focused on the geary corridor, and it is a major trunk line

with 50,000 riders a day, and the service on the 38 and the 38 limited but the funds are not as fast as we want them to be and not as reliable and this leads to crowding. so the proposal is instead of the bus rapid transit improvements including a dedicated bus line as well as improvements to the stations and stops and the improvements to the vehicles that are service be the corridor and the pedestrian and the over all street scape enhancements. >> and the project has produced at this point after the extensive community process, a identified a staff recommended alternative, and this is an alternative that concludes sides run and center running bus lanes throughout the corridor and the official actions will be at the end of the process.

developing environmental report and a statement to fulfill the environmental review and the requirements of the process and we have reached the administrative draft stage and we have a 600 page document and it is reviewed by the local agencies and just this week we are going to be sending the document to the federal transit administration for the review as well and once we get the comment back, we will be ready to release that back and into the public. >> and at the same time, the two agencis that have been working on the near term improvements with those high demand on the corridor we have heard input for faster implementation so that we can explore the ideas of phasing and some elements of the project in place and the idea is to improve the customer service now, and to build a support for improvements over time and so we have identified

and we have called potential initial construction phase improvements. these are elements that are placed early and that means in the environmental process is completed in selecting the improvements and we are working for a few factors in having a subset of the projects of what we put in place and the improvements that we want in place later. and we are also looking for a pedestrian safety high priority locations, and the opportunities to coordinate with other agency efforts. and we first discussed the improvements in place or on the way, earlier this year, the sfmta colorized the bus lanes and now we are bright red and also this year, the sfmta has put in place the agreement to provide the transit signal priority, and on along the intersections of the corridor

as well as the pedestrian equipment at some locations. and in 2015, we are expecting to see some rapid branding so that the improvements to the branding for the buses and this station. and along the corridor. and as well as the buses that we are expect to be coming and new or buses to replace the ones that are serving the corridor now, as well as the service adjustments to provide limited service. branding is really critical early on given what lessons that austin texas learned and hoi mexico city distinguishes from the rest of the fleet and i am glad that it is starting early. >> i will note that geary is what is considered the rapid network plus other lines, and now it is all part of the rapid network system that the sfmta is trying to define through this branding effort. >> so on top of those

improvements we are seeing potential for initial construction phase, and near the term improvements and all and extending the range from where it ends around van ness to stanley, and the other improvements to the bus routes as well as bus operational improvements and pedestrian safety improvement. the cost of these improvements is estimated to be 15 to 20 million dollars and to bring the benefits of the projects to feed them on the corridor sooner, ask including traffic time, and pedestrian safety benefits as well, as far as schedule goes, the project here and not really seeing this as three streams of work but as-needed and i wanted to complete the environmental project and we have a few steps to get there and we are aiming to get there in the fall of 2015, but we do want to advance

the initial construction phase or near term project and get started by the conceptual engineering this winter and be ready to construct the elements as early as 2015 and on to 2016, 17. and at the same time, we have also want to be advancing the full project, and we believe that we can start in the engineering in the spring, and next year, and we will be ready to start the conceptually phase for that project. >> and leads me to the allocation, fund request, to the sfmta the amount requested is 870,000, and really it is 90,000 for the participation in the environmental phase with, 480,000 for planning of those near term improvements and this frees up 390,000 from the existing appropriation and it will put towards the review of and the identification and to address the stff