>> good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for tuesday, april 10th, 2017. clerk, could you please call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: cohen absent. kim, absent. peskin, present. ronen, absent.

is safia? >> a quorum. mr. clerk, could you please read the next item. [ agenda item read ] >> good morning, members of the transportation authority. i'm john larson. like yesterday, we had a very full agenda starting with item seven on your agenda. the cac recommended approval for 17 major league dollar in propagated funds. questions were asked about the subway station and strategies regarding lost time. it was indicated to the cac that

although recovery did exist, it was not possible to recover all lost time. in response to the bayview transportation plan. staff reiterated that the plans specifically focused on meeting the needs of current residents and demonstrates to the community that the planning process was for existing residents and not for people who might move in in the future. the cac appreciated that. the cac also supported adopting the final study. district 4 member has worked with vice-chair tang for some time and noted the report did a good job of visualizing what was already known about the issues related to the 66 routing. it was strongly urged with midday service to address these connectivity issues, there would

have to be additional buses and overall service from the 48 to the east side all the way to the ocean through west portal station. the cac recommended the $140 million revolver and the amended budget and expressed appreciation for the performance under staff. with regard to the strategic plan update, the cac emphasized the importance of community outreach during the process while recognizing the challenges associated with engaging on what can be a complex process. members suggested certain community groups that the ta staff right add to the outreach strategy as it is developed and may remain interested as the plans are executed. finally, the cac acted to --

with regard to the strategies. concern was expressed regarding the expressway options do not do enough to cause increased capacity and fewer automobiles and merely shift existing auto loads to different lanes a. particular observation was made by district 10 member that district 6, 9, 10, 11, tend to bear the brunt of the emissions by the freeway segments being studied and that a focus should remain on mode shift, resulting in fewer cards and unregional translate. finally, the cac reiterated the request on muny of system reliability -- muni system reliability. that concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you, mr. larson.

are there any questions? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for your presentation. mr. clerk, could you please read the next item. [ agenda item read ] >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, it's closed and a roll call, please. >> motion to approve the minutes made acommissioner tang and seconded by breed. [votin [voting] >> clerk: we have approval.

>> all right. the minutes are approved. next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an action item. >> mr. pickford? >> good morning. the transportation authority has an 11 members as an advisory committee with each member serving a two-year turn. the board appoints individuals to fill seats and nor staff or the cac make recommendations on appointment. to qualify, applicants must be san francisco residents and appear before the board once to speak to their interests and qualifications. the enclosure has details on each applicants. the vacancy under consideration today is the suspension of bradley whitmire after missing meetings. any questions? >> any questions for mr.

pickford? are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is the district 3 seat, and i am soliciting applications and to that end, i would like to continue this item to our next meeting. if at least a motion to that effect made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner kim, we have a different house. counselor, can i do that without objection? [off microphone] >> roll call on continuing the item as motion made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner kim on that continuance. a roll call, please. [roll call] [votin

[votin [voting] >> next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an action item. >> mas. craft. >> good morning for the second time. i'm going through the positions. assembly bill 2530. this would cease bond for the rail. similar to past positions, on senate bill 1376, recommending a support position. this would require that the public utilities commission september regulations on tnc companies and then also ask them to investigate potentially imposing a fee to help enforce those and then having a series

of workshops with stakeholders to discuss potential regulations and needs of the wheelchair accessible community. we're recommending a support position on senate bill 936. this is a requirement that the office of planning and research put together a task force on autonomous vehicle planning and required them to report back by, i believe it's 2021, and then we're seeking amendments that the task force covers a number of different topics. we would like to see fair labor and safety streets, safety for all users added to the list of policies to explore. >> any questions? i assume mark is up in our state capital today? >> yes, he is.

>> are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item number five? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt the positions mentioned by ms. craft on the three or four mentioned bills in our state legislature? motion made by commissioner stef -- stefani. mr. clerk, if there's no objection, given the number of individuals here to testify on item 16, i would like to call item 16 out of order. mr. clerk, could you please call item 16. [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an information item. >> thank you. and before i bring eric up, let

me start by thanking ta staff and my colleagues for what i think is money well-spent. for those of you who have watched our ongoing hearings on the millennium tower, i think what we've learned is peer review early is value added. that's precisely why this authority set aside some money and asked mr. cordova to do the work that he's done. that study is before us. i think the findings of the study are important. >> i'm happy to present on the status of the peer review and the tunnel option study update. let's start with the peer review where our mission was to go ahead and review and bring in a panel of experts to take a look at three operational studies that frankly had some different

types of information that were used for those. in that regard, we've brought all the players together to take a look at that. the three in question are listed on your screen there. one prepared by a consultant to the properties and the properties they own at the second of corner and howard. also, the second was prepared by the operation analysis of two versus three tracks. and a third study prepared by the consultant team. the peer review panel that we assembled is led by ty lynn international. extraordinary in terms of the operations analysis experience. today we have actually you vein coropowski here today. he'll actually present in a minute or so. i just want to go ahead and also acknowledge the fact that, you know, we did that i can the lead

our pmo in collaboration with all the stakeholders. we've held three workshops, had participation by caltrain. they are all here today in that regard. i think it's been a collaborative effort. i'm going to hand it over to gene to go over it. >> first of all, i would like to thank the body for having us participate in this exceptionally important project. secondly, i would be remiss if i didn't address because of the constructiveness of the process amongst all of the parties. this would not have resulted in the kind of report had there been a conflict or a lack of

participation by any of the participants. it's been an exceptionally constructive process. regarding the overall general observations, these theoretical studies that were done all -- you will have to forgive my technical inabilities. the studies that were done, all theoretical in saying, yeah, you can make this work with two tracks, but in reality, if anything happens on an operation, you will not be able to achieve your reliability and service goals. the swiss rail is considered to be the gold standard in the world. they operate with a three-minute tolerance and get a 91% on-time performance. cal train is 5:59 at the capital corridor, even though that's not listed here, that was five minutes. when you take into consideration the reality that can happen on

the railroad, you're going to need the third track. there's no doubt about that. the only study that did a study on what happens if something doesn't go right, and that's virtually every day on a railroad operation, it indicated that the three tracks would be required. the major findings on it, obviously number one, that three tracks are required for it to work. the capacity plan for four high-speed trains and six cal train trains per hour cannot be assured unless there's a plus or minus level that any train can run at any level. if they're out of sync, they need to move it from one track to the other. the columns that are built can't be moved. so any revisions to existing criteria have to be done in the context of not disrupting what

has currently been built. and there is room for some modification and the participants and stakeholders are looking at that today. you might be able to push this to 12 trains an hour in and 12 out. that's 24 train moves an hour, but that's a very tight operational restriction. the new underground station at fourth and townsend is likely to have significance for rail operations and in addition for the potential development sites that are being discussed in that area. so having that as a major terminal facility is also exceptionally important. the overall utility at fourth

and townsend might be adding tracks instead of the two to three tracks. that provides flexibility in the case of disruption and provides greater use of that station. some of the additional findings, these are significant operational value at the caltrain terminal at yard and fourth and king for staging, servicing, and addressing issues when there is a service disruption where you may need to turn a train at a location you wouldn't normally do. the study is exploring those options for the use of this yard. a consistent dtx tracks and conversations should be used for different modeling. there were different asaumthss made -- assumptions made.

all results considered by the peer review panel, it's more like a transit system where you can push more trains through a given piece of railroad than would a traditional railroad signal system. they exist. amtrak employees in new york get them in and out of penn station on a two-track tunnel. so that's also in the process. so we'll have a consistent base result from both caltrain and the high-speed rail authority when they move forward. the recommended initial immediate actions, the operators need to finalize that workable blended surface plan. when do the six caltrain runs and the four per hour? they also need to take a look at the capacity of the railroad between san jose and bayshore to see how many trains per hour that two-track can actually

accommodate. that will determine how many trains per hour you can get into the salesforce terminal and the fourth and townsend. the two operators in the tjpa need to identify and select a mutual mutually acceptable and workable set of rolling stock and tapingss -- adaptations that will allow those platforms at those stations. the right of way impacts constructing the dtx is a crucial stage of this project development. based on the senior engineer and two operators, they need to review the trade-offs that exist for track and switch designs within the practical limits for low-speed terminal operations. there are also -- i will call it

desired criteria but not always can you achieve every element of that design criteria. so there's some flexibility in here, and that's being looked at now. the two operators and the tjpa -- i will have to get my letters all straight -- need to revisit the operational programs and design for the station to improve the utility and flexibility of that station. i mentioned the potential for additional platform, the length of those platforms that would be a component of that to see how many trains could be brought in or queued at the ballpark, let's say, to be able to store the trains in a position where they don't have go into the downtown terminal. the peer review panel made several observations. they were lacking in coordinated assumptions. again, going back to a common criteria for all of the studies that will be done on the capacity modeling in the future. lastly, i would like to just

thank the san francisco county transportation authority for facilitating this effort. this, i'm sure, was a challenging effort and really was the first time that all of the stakeholders were brought together into one place where they each were able to deal with each other, hear their positions, and present the issues that they may have discrepancies on in a constructive way so the solutions could be found and this project move forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i really appreciate it. i think the last thing that you just touched on is the most important thing, which is bringing everybody in the room and working collaboratively. your next step, number six, and i don't want to put too fine a point on it, is a little damming when you're taking on a multi-billion dollar project, these projects, the high-speed rail, the city, the buy and

through its planning department, the mta, the county transportation authority's lack of coordination is rather startling. i think what i just heard is that creating this space going forward is profoundly important. and i hope that whether you're involved or the peer review involved can use this to coordinate upon themselves. which if it's common platforms, which i hope our folks at caltrain are listening to, i think that's very, very important. i very much wanted to understand if the two track or three-track solution was right. i've been very adamant. i think we should all be very adamant that we want to reduce, if not eliminate, any cut and cover along the downtown extension right of way that we

can. i think one of the most important things we've learned from this is that there are pieces of private property that we don't need to condemn, which is going to save us money and heartache and controversy. for all of that, i thank you. to all of the players, i hope that you will continue to work in the collaborative fashion that's been forged. are there any questions for the panel or mr. cordova? if not, i will turn it back over to eric. thank you, gene. i look at my other screen. sorry. commissioner kim. >> thank you. i just had a couple of questions. this is my first briefing on this report. so the current train box which we have already built out for the terminal would accommodate either a two-or three-track tunnel?

>> yes, that's true. >> so what we're mainly considering is either the alignment or both of what we do at the fourth and king rail yard; is that correct? >> it was looking at two or three tracks and the throat section that goes ahead and turns right into the train box. we have a lot of tunnelling. we're about to give another presentation on the tunnelling effort there in that regard. >> there was a cut and cover alignment study in the original eir. >> right. >> there was a question that came up about the tunnel boring machines of this size. is that possible? is that feasible? >> i would like to get into the presentation, commissioner kim, and we could go ahead and answer those questions. my apologies for not being clear. >> i will wait for the presentation. >> i just want to give a quick

int introduction. we're going to move into the tunnelling option study that we participated in. we, being the transportation authority brought our expert to the table, a world renown tunnelling expert that's worked on numerous projects throughout the world, here in san francisco also. we've worked with experts from the tgpa team. we're going to go through the tunnelling update here in terms of findings, et cetera. >> all right. thank you. again, my name is keith abbey. i will be presenting today on tunnel option study for dtx. just to recap, the tunnel option study purpose of this study is to try to reduce some of the instruction impacts by reducing

the amount of cut and cover and increasing the amount of mining on the alignment. presented to you guys about six months ago. since then, we've worked on several tasks. we looked at additional options for the throat section down there by howard street. we also took a deeper dive into some of the schedule and constructability -- excuse me. schedule and cost estimates for this project. we confirmed some of the ventilation requirements and took a deeper dive into the tunnel boring machine. this is a blow-up of the throat section. you can see howard street is going more or less up and down, and second street off to the side there. this is really the most complex portion of the project. you can see this is where it goes from the three-track alignment up to the six-track alignment going into the transit center. so we looked at a variety of

options here. those are showing the different colors you see. we'll talk about that a little later. starting at clem tinea street, we looked at two options there. what you see on the left, that's the scm option. that's what we used in the baseline and we've extended it further down. on the right, you see the tunnel boring machine that we looked at. now, for the fourth and townsend station, we recommend that being a cut and cover structure. that's because the soil conditions are very poor in that area and also because it's shallow. there's only a couple of feet of cover between the construction and the grade in that area. now, there are ways to reduce construction impacts. primarily by using what is called top-down construction. that would be installing temporary decking during weekend closures and reopening traffic

during the work week to allow commuters to driver on it. this is a station down in los angeles where they did the procedure there. it was done on biel street for the transit center as well. now, i said we took a closer look at costs, shown there in the shaded orange. that's the mining portion down on townsend street. we broke that down into the two mining options. you see the tbm plus sm options. these are preliminary numbers but come with a fully burden cost premium. if we went with the other option, that's $140 million. the purple shaded area, that pie-shaped portion is the throat section that we'll talk about now. here it is blown up a little bit. the shaded gray areas there, those are parcels that are off the public right of way. those are going to be cut and cover in any case.

now, when we talk about fully mining the throat, this is what we mean. it's the shaded blue there that you see. that comes with a pretty high cost premium. $460 million to do that. we looked at ways to reduce the scope there. here is if we mine only under howard street. you see that in the shaded red. the post-shaded gray on second street, that would still be cut and cover, but it would be with the temporary decking, again, the top-down configuration. that version has a $208 million premium. we looked at extending the mining down on second street, as far as to hama street. you would have a small portion of deckover cut and cover. that comes with a $343 million cost cover. you see the baseline there, 54 months. moving down, the tbm plus sm option, the yellow bar is if we mine only a portion of the

throat section. you can see we're actually saving about three months in the overall schedule, even though we are getting a significantly longer tunnel. now, the red is if you mine the entire throat section. that is less room to work, so it kicks it up eleven months beyond the baseline. if you move to the sem option, the numbers are true. they're bigger. that makes sense because you're using the same mining technique as the baseline, but you have a longer tunnel there. now, for recommendation. we do recommend proceeding with 30% preliminary design for the following. that tbm plus sem mining option all the way down to the fourth and townsend station, we do recommending cut and cover at the fourth and fourth and townsend station to reduce

impact. we recommend extending the boring machine in an existing building in the throat section. doing that will help reduce some of the impacts in that area. that comes with a $23 million premium. we also recommend maintaining cut and cover, again with the temporary decking on second street between clementinea. that comes with a $208 million premium but allows traffic to flow continuously on howard. lastly, we recommend performing value engineering at a 30% preliminary engineering just to validate our assumptions and make sure we're on track. thanks. >> are there any questions? commissioner kim? not to put too much of a fine point on it, but disruption ranging from four and a half to six and a half years. is that correct? >> no, that's not really

correct. >> 54 months to 77 months? >> so that's the construction period, yes. i mean, i guess it depends on what you would define as disruption. so when using the temporary decking, you know, the street or public right of way would be significantly less than that. >> commissioner kim? >> i just had a few questions about the premium. this is above and beyond what the cost estimated today if we just went with the original alignment? >> that's correct. >> does it also consider the cost savings we would incur by not having to disturb the properties above us? >> as far as my understanding is, no. that's a hard construction cost. it doesn't count for the socioeconomic costs. >> okay. the director is standing behind

you. >> good morning, director kim, directors. the costs that you see are conceptual costs over and above. the recommendation is to carry the cost at 30% level so we're better able to compare the best costs with these costs and then do value engineering to determine the cost method to proceed with. >> i'm sorry. i'm such a layperson around all of this. so the twin bore tunnel boring machine would allow us to tunnel a tunnel wide enough for three tracks; is that correct? >> that is correct. the idea is we would use two tunnel-boring machine that would contain one track essentially, and then there would be an sem mine cavern in between the two that would contain the third track. so it's essentially two relatively medium size tunnel boring machines, i guess you

would call them, and one between those. >> is that the most affordable option or just the only option available to us given the technology that exists? >> so we ran several different scenarios and different options during this. this is the one that came out the most cost-effective, yes. >> so there were other tunnel boring machines, but they weren't as cost-effective as this? >> the big tunnel boring machines are, yes, but they're not feasible because you need to go deeper. the vertical grade, if you will, wouldn't align for those. >> now, did you study a loop extending out of the terminal after we arrive to the terminal? once we're underground, you might as well keep going. >> and you mean headed towards the bay? >> yes, headed towards the bay.

>> that was not in our scope. i will let mark address that. >> includes a loop going or going straight. all options are open. that does not preclude it, but we didn't go further into it. >> i think it's good for the members of the public to understand it is a potential option that the boring machines could do two things. one is to continue to the east bay and create a way for caltrain to go to the east bay or for bart, if we wanted to work with them. the second is that we would create a loop, right, that would provide kind of an additional valve for the trains to move in and out of the station so they don't all come in and come out in the same direction. >> so what we did was look at all these ideas that were out there and made sure our designs -- that it precludes them from taking place. >> isn't it good to study those now?

once the tunnel boring machine is in the ground, don't we want to know which direction it's going into before we pull it out? >> we're going to have to pull the boring machine out at the throat structure. if we do a loop, it's going to be on the other side of the box. it's being built underneath biele street. so it will be a different boring machine. >> so the extension, if it became a second bay or loop, it would be a different boring machine? >> it would have to be different criteria, because the extense is going to take place from biele street, or the train box, onwards. >> so it won't be the same machine? >> not necessarily. >> not necessarily. >> yes. >> i'm sorry to keep asking the question, but putting the machine into the ground is pretty hard. why would we pull it back out? why wouldn't we just have it

keep going? >> the machines will have to be used for other projects. they's not built for the project itself. they can be used for several projects. >> what do you mean by that? i'm sorry. >> it's possible -- the tunnel boring machine is owned by the custom cu contractors doing the work. it's possible they will use it on another project. >> i understand that. i'm saying for the sake of efficiency, wouldn't we want to let it keep going? this is, again, where i bring this very layperson perspective. wouldn't we just want to combine with either bart or caltrain and let the construction continue so that at least the tunnel boring machine can do its job? let me think about this because i'm thinking about central subway. so we couldn't pull the tunnel boring machine out in chinatown because that would be crazy. instead, we purchased in north

beach. now, we haven't funded the second phase of the sway to north beach, but it went through and came out there. i don't want to say did half the job, but it did some of the work that needed to get done for the second phase. >> the way we have it laid out now, the tunnel boring machine will come out on the -- >> you see it on the screen here. >> and then the structure comes into the twin box that's been built. then the continuation of the break crossing will be on the other side of the train box on the east side of the train box underneath biele street onto the bay, or loop from there. >> if i can add, commissioner kim, timing is really the issue and funding for all that. >> i understand that. >> for the next crossing. >> i understand that. >> and, ideally, if we were able to time the project together,

which is one, the dtx and the second be a second bay crossing, then you would have the best use of dollars, but the issue there is just one of timing, the ability to go ahead and prepare the environmental documents, et cetera, so the timing here from everything we see to date potentially probably won't work. >> okay. i know. that was kind of my question. i feel that we should at least try to endeavor to get to that place because it is a more effective use of public dollars, even though it's the entire region. it may be impossible to align these projects with each other. the second question is on the eir. we would have to reopen the original environmental study to pursue this alternative? is that correct? >> it's an eir and eis? >> not necessarily. it's looking at the worst-case

scenari scenarios. that's what they do, show you the worst-case scenario. you start looking at the designs and then you show a reduction in impact. we want to show the public the worst-case scenario and then improve upon it versus showing them something that as we go further into the engineering, we find things don't work. >> the original eir and eis anticipated this as a worst-case scenario so we don't have to offer this slightly different alignment? >> the reason the cut and cover scenario was created, which is the worst-case scenario. >> i see. so the boring machine doesn't -- we don't know the answer to that? >> right. >> so it may, but we don't know. >> it would be a reduction in impact. >> i'm asking about not about impact but about timing.

so if we have to reopen an eir and eis, it will take additional time. >> yeah. >> i'm asking if that will get triggered or not, and you're saying you don't know yet? but if it does, it will create a delay, although a delay to a project that's not fully funded. >> not necessarily. >> but it could. >> not necessarily. >> but not necessarily means that it could. that's my question. >> i'm saying most likely it will not. >> it will not. >> because the environmental documents, as it stands right now, the supplemental environmental document, contemplates the worst-case scenario. the impact to the public is what we're showing. >> why didn't we study a loop in this? a loop is separate from a second bay. that's actually a part of this project. >> the loop is not -- let me

defer to the project manager. when was the loop -- i know it was part of the project at one point. >> ms. murphy. >> hi. megan murphy for the program management team. so, first, this is on me. i didn't brief the executive director, but i did talk to legal counsel about the environmental document and the tunnel boring machine, and the answer is, no, it does not impact the environmental document. >> that's great news. >> i apologize for the director for not briefing him on that. the other question about the loop, so we studied the loop about 11, 12 years ago. also, the rab studied it more recently. we found that it was not operationally necessary for the benefit you received. you received a very incremental benefit from that loop operationally that did not bore

-- did not gain the benefit of doubling the line to justify the cost. >> that's right. but a three-track would take care of some of those concerns of entry and exit versus the loop. >> that's absolutely correct. >> i would love to get a briefing. i'm sorry i didn't ask for one before today's hearing. it would be great. i have a lot of questions, but i don't want to take up everyone's time. >> we will work with the director to get that set up for you. >> thank you, ms. murphy. executive director chang, i saw you don't want to add. mr. abbey, has there been any analysis of stacking the tunnels on top of one another? >> we have not looked at that. as i mentioned, the verityal alignment -- vertical alignment is pretty much retrained. most of it is kind of shallow. that may be technically difficult to do.

we have not studied it, however. >> okay. at the risk of opening a can of worms and maybe this is a rhetorical question, but it's a serious question, which is who ultimately is going to be in charge of this project? maybe that's not -- do you want to take this? >> that's above my pay grade, vastly. >> it's a vexing question. >> it's a question to me, supervisor. >> i bet it is. >> the tgpa is currently in charge. i wish for them to continue to be in charge. as i mentioned to you before and to our partners, this project is going to be delivered collectively by all of us. as it moves forward, it will be in coordination and partnership with smta, planning, san francisco planning, and caltrain and high speed rail.

it will be with the stakeholders together, we'll work together to make sure everyone's interests are protected and that we have a successful project. what you see today is a result of our collaboration. the peer review for both the tunnel option study and the two tracks versus three tracks was done in collaboration. we want to extend that collaboration moving forward. i could not have found a better partner. >> we'll take that under advisement. then, with regard to the remarkably important issue of common platform heights, how are our partners at caltrain taking that? >> discussions are continuing between high speed rail and caltrain and our wish from my board is to make sure we have

common platforms and maximum flexibility in anything we construct, whether it's the transit station center itself or the alignment, we must have maximum flexibility for operations in the future, which includes platforms and possibly other elements. >> all right. seeing no further questions of our many staffs in this, why don't we open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. if you will line up to your right, my left, elizabeth, i think it says scanlin, bruce, amisted, andura, bruce legid. theodore strass. >> i have appeared before you many times. today i am happy i am not, but i

want to give you some context. last year in the winter, you had before you a proposal. you determined that to no longer be viable because it required 16 trains at the surface. you cut back the amount that was going to be set aside for engineering. a number of us, as you would hear from my colleagues, have been moving to work it forward.

that investigates tunnel options starting at the south side of the hill and connecting into the former-approved plan. i must say that the media has never understood this and seems to think that what is before you today is the city's approved plan to get the train downtown. i want to emphasize that the city has no approved plan to get the train downtown until the rav study is finished and until later this year, hopefully, you then look at the rav study and look at the root that we can have for the dtx. thank you. >> before we get the next speaker, do you want to just speak to the record of decision, ms. chang or mr. zembanye [phonetic]. >> i will refer to the director. >> the record of decision, the

rod. >> we're planning to take it to the board for decision in may. >> thank you. >> you wanted to wait for the peer review as requested to be completed. i assume that this body is happy with it, and we can move forward with it. >> good morning, directors. i'm the planning director for caltrain. i wanted to make brief remarks to let you know we're here in the audience. i want to extend my compliments. we participated in the peer review. i found it to be a collaborative and fair and thorough process. the word constructive was used. i'm in agreement with that. caltrain continues to work with the city and partners going forward in continuing the

collaboration that was begun by the peer review. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. next speaker. >> good morning. i'm bruce armstead. i, too, participated in a peer review study. i thought it was very collaborative. we're in full support of the results. >> thank you. >> mr. agid. >> thank you, good morning, chair, commissioners. i'm the share of the cac, a member of the rab study and rail working groups. i'm a member of an advocacy group, friends of dtx. in conducting this peer review study and understanding and confirming the findings on the two versus three tracks and tunnelling option was critical in terms of moving phase two of

the project forward. we don't want any questions or doubt on why a method or option was determined to be a preferred path forward. now that the peer review is completed, we see next steps as making the decision on the optimal alignment of dtx, whether pennsylvania or third street with phase one of the salesforce transit center targeted for completion and implementation in the third quarter of this year. we know all parties, including the public, would like to know how the party builds momentum from phase one to phase two from an amenity to grand central station of the west. it's critical to move forward with the dtx to minimize challenges that will present themselves using fourth and townsend for electrified caltrain and high speed rail. we know the design to date cannot adequately handle

passenger volumes of caltrain diesel service. with caltrain and high speed rail, i'm not sure they can handle passengers, pedestrians, bike share facilities, tax sis, light rail, and autos without major infrastructure improvements. almost like rep indica-- replic items. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is via. i'm a member of the high speed rail working group. i'm a co-founder of the friends

of dtx. i came to speak because i feel my government is failing me. we voted, as californiaens to get high speed rail over 10 years ago. proposition 1a is explicit. it does not generally say we'll get the train to san francisco. it pinpoints the trans bay terminal as the end of the line for phase one. in spite of that legal fact, both the high speed rail authority and san francisco officials have not recognized the urgency of completing this task. the excuses are never ending. the rav study has to be finished, and it drags on. the peer review was another hurdle thrown in the way of the tracks, and we're thrilled to see you voting on it today. the cry of, we have no money for the downtown extension rings loudly when all else fails. i would like to tell you that this is the only capital project in san francisco that seems to

be bogged down in quick sand, but i can point to many from the central subway that will speed up the t in an excellent move toward more et quitable solution. we created an advocacy group to get the train tracks to the station, not to worry about what land could or could not be developed, whether 280 should or should not be taken down, but to make sure we take advantage of the additional 1 million riders that have been projected to take caltrain and high speed rail once we extend those tracks the additional 1.3 miles to the gorgeous trans bay terminal. we deserve your attention on this. we deserve your attention on all capital projects which help san

franciscoens move around the bay area. please recognize your duty to the people of san francisco and count on us to rally the people to get the train tracks to the station. >> thank you for that santa cruz reference. next speaker, please. >> good morning, chair peskin, board members and staff, my name is adinna levin. i'm part of the friends of dtx group who are speaking with you today. i want tot commend the agency for moving forward with this piece, the peer review piece, that sets the stage for some key decisions about completing the downtown extension and, as a couple of the previous speakers said, this is one of two key pieces that are required for things to fall into place to allow this project to move

forward. the second piece shortly forthcoming is choosing an alignment from the rav study in order to make that decision to have a complete project that would then create a project that is shovel ready. as we're looking at the bigger picture, transportation goals, and working on the next generation of funding to do large and transformative projects such as this one, moving this forward, making a decision, being ready will put this in the queue to be the regional transformative project that it is. with that, i would also like the thank chair peskin for calling out the importance of the platform issue as well as another seemingly wonky detail regarding the caltrain and high

speed rail schedules. this seems like something who is an engineer two levels down in staff would pay attention to. but these are the decisions that will make a difference in terms of what the capacity of the system is and how many people are going to be able to take transit and take high speed rail into the city as opposed to having cars clogging the streets. >> thank you. there strauss. >> good morning. i'm peter strauss. i have i'm on the board of the san francisco transit riders and also part of the friends of dtx. so why did five of us come down here today on what's basically an information item? actually, part of that is that we were led to believe that there would be a progress report on the rav study.

>> we're getting there. >> that's good to hear. we're here because the dtx is vital to the future of the city. it's our next subway. it's not being treated with the you are sen jy that it needs and -- urgency that it needs or deserves. the project has essentially been stalled. we've been going nowhere. let me say that the three-track study that you just completed is not part of the delay. in the meantime, everything else has just been spinning its wheels. yes, the reasons that are given for these delays, as there always are, but the bottom line is we've lost close to a year. so we're concerned whenever a progress report is deferred. we need your active involvement to ensure that an