Safia, my apologies. Supervisor safai i was not going to say anything. I just have to say that the issue with using the emergency brake to essentially, you know, run out the tires, it would be great if we could get maybe someone, a representative from the transit operators to come in here and talk to us as well. Id like to hear their perspective. I understand that management doesnt want to take that risk. Were also putting millions of dollars worth of vehicles on the line. And not exactly sure if its true that they cant do a twoarm motion and why were doing that. No disrespect to miss kirschbaum. It sounds absolutely crazy to me that were using an emergency brake. If i use the emergency brake to stop my car every time i got a red light, a car would last probably about three weeks. So i really dont understand why this is the method that were using. Chair peskin commissioner, you are making a very good point. Im hereby asking our staff to recheat to the representatives, the appropriate representative at the Transit Workers Union local 250a to see if they would like to come and give the operators perspective the next time we hear this item. Thank you. Pes with that, mr. Clerk, next item please. Clerk this is information item. Chair peskin all right. Who are we going to start with, tilley . All right. Good morning. Chair peskin good morning. Commissioners, erica cordova, happy to kick off the critical item here, d. T. X. , governance oversight on project delivery and finance update. You know, as i reported back in the spring of this year, weve assemble adwellqualified, robust team of expert panelists. And frankly i think theyve done a very good job for us, in terms of getting into the details of the project, understanding and looking at the delivery, not only of the t. T. C. But also more importantly 9d. T. X. Itself. I want to say thank you to them. And also to all of the stakeholders, in particularly t. J. A. And their staff. As it relates to spending numerous hours with us and the team in that regard, in terms of the specifics. Im going to basically go ahead now and hand it over to shannon with mckenzie and company. Shes actually helped lead this effort in terms of bringing the stakeholders together, conducting interviews, et cetera. Done a very phenomenal job in that regard. Final thank you to you, chair peskin, and to this commission to asking these very important questions. We know this is one of the most critical projects here in san francisco. So were anxious to hear from our panel of experts and want to go ahead and respond to any questions you and the public may have. Shannon. Thank you. Good morning, chair peskin and commissioners. The review of the downtown extension. A bit of an introduction to the work that we have undertaken over the past few months. The sfmta convened a Multidisciplinary Panel to review and evaluate both current and alternative options for governance and oversight, funding and financing, and project delivery, to enable the successful management and delivery of the downtown extension, which we will refer to throughout the rest of our presentation as the rail program. Today ill be walking through the methodology and approach that weve taken to that work. And then members of the expert panel themselves will talk through the recommendations to date. Ten expert panelists were assembled to do this work, across a variety of different areas of expertise, as well as different organizations, to try to bring a really robust set of both experience and expertise in mega project delivery and rail program mega project delivery, as well as a balance of local, national and International Expertise to think through again what are the best practices that we know exist globally and how can we bring those locally to the rail programs execution. Six of those panelists are here today, ignacio from europe, john from w. S. P. , jeff from newsium, jose from i. D. S. And john, also with w. S. P. Theyll be walking through, a subset of them will be walking through the recommendations to date. The responsibilities of this expert panel were threefold. First, wanting to make sure that there was a thorough, welldeveloped understanding of the current state and key practices of the downtown extension. And that included an expectation around a detailed review of the materials that exist with the transportation bay, Transit Center and the tjpaand stakeholders in this process to make sure there was a thorough understanding of the current state, as well as an opportunity to understand areas of strengthen to continue to build on and areas of moving forward. The second key element was then to translate this knowledge into a series of thoughtful questions that theyd ask each other and again bring the best of their local, national and International Expertise, too, to understand the third area of responsibility, which was defining key and specific recommendations to improve the real programs delivery, as we think about the opportunity for success moving forward. When it came to keys involving stakeholders throughout this process, we involved a variety of folks, more than 30 senior members across ten different agencies in this work, listed on the slide itself. These stakeholders were involved in a variety of ways. There were a series of workshops on major downtown extension reviews. And well talk through that in a few slides, where stakeholders were able to participate. And we were privileged to have very consistent, thoughtful representation from stakeholders across the across the board. We also conducted a series perform interviews with stakeholders, who in some cases were also involved in the workshops, in other cases were just pointed to as folks who had really great perspective on current and aspirations for d. T. X. Moving forward. In terms of how the scope of work was conceptualized and achieved. Let me just walk through briefly the work done to date. We kicked off with a broad stakeholder broad stakeholder workshop on april 8th, which again was an opportunity for everyone to create a shared understanding of the project and aspirations for outcomes of the work itself. This also included specific presentations by the tjpa as well as california highspeed train and cal train. Also start to understand and point out the places of interdependence, given the criticality of those two operators in the downtown extension. Throughout the process, we also conducted the stakeholder interviews that i mentioned earlier. So that happened throughout the course of the over the last two and a half months. And then also underpinning the work that was done was a series of five international and national and local case studies. Those included the california highspeed rail, london cross rail program, the gateway project, the san franciscooakland bay Bridge Program and highspeed rail in spain. The intent of this work was to manufacture what can we learn from best practices that exist, what can we learn from lessons that others have experienced, that we can make sure that were not making the same mistake twice. And then, you know, again pressure test the type of design criteria and thinking that were doing when it comes to recommendations for path forward on the real program. Beyond the kickoff, then there were three additional workshops that we hosted across the stakeholder set and then with additional work afterwardswork the expert panelists. There was a governance and oversight work on current ant best practices in the organization. These included topics like the board, board executive mandate, composition, operations, interactions between the board and the management team, how we think about capabilities and capacity needed to deliver Something Like this. As well as the major processes that inform Good Governance and oversight, particularly around Risk Management and performance management. We had the next workshop then was a continuation of this governance and oversight of discussion, as well as moving into project delivery and funding and finance best practices. Again this also included the stakeholder set to really help refine how the expert panel was thinking about the questions to be answered, the criteria that we were using to answer those questions and then to make sure that we were drawing appropriate agency and local insight into the output. And then, finally, and most recently, we had what we call a testing the answer session, if you will, on june 5th. It allowed the expert panel to test with key stakeholders, their early hypothesis around the recommendations, to understand unintended consequences to understand whether or not there was good consensus around whether the aspirations and recommendations being purported would appropriately bring best practices and prevent similar Lessons Learned from some of the case studies, that type of thing. And underpinning all of this i should also mention that to build on mr. Cordovas callout to the tjpa, we spent the expert panel spent significant additional time tjpa and additional workshops, where we spent another threeish or so hours getting into the current state on the project delivery and project finance elements, as well as the current state around governance and oversight. Against were grateful to the partnership and transparency that the tjpa has provided throughout the process. And then finally, underpinning this entire effort has been a very collaborative process across the panelists. Virtually through Conference Calls and subsets to really refine and understand the recommendations, as well as to pressure test potential options moving forward. So its been a very collaborative and thorough process across the experts involved, as well as the stakeholders who have participated so thoughtfully. With that ill turn it over to john, one of our expert panelists to enter and share some of the panelists recommendations. Chair peskin let me just interject that i really want to thank you, shannon. I know many of us were part of those stakeholder interviews. And i want to thank our executive director and eric cordova for assembling this expert pam. And i want to thank the panelists for what i think is a very, very thorough piece of work, that is going to be very helpful for all of the stakeholder agencies in moving forward. I mean, obviously this all started because of our profound concerns about phase 1 and wanting to get it right in phase 2, commonly known as the downtown extension or d. T. X. Or the rail program. And i cannot stress the importance of this exercise and look forward to hearing from all of you as to your recommendations. And well be hearing more about this at our meeting in july. So with that, ill turn it back over to you, shannon. Thank you. Thank you, chair peskin and commissioners. My name is john. Its a pleasure to be part of this process. I will say at the outset, as we talked about the recommendations here, that this is truly an important project for the region and the mega region as well. And beginning with some of our recommendations, we really tried to take a technical and policy view towards this project, in light of shannon mentioning, in light of other mega projects around the world, and around the country. And really think about the critical mobility value that this project actually brings to the region, broadly defined. And one of the most important i think consensus recommendations, by the expert panel, is to broaden and deepen the definition of the region, as a mega region. This has been referred to as a downtown extension, its much more than that. Its serving the larger bay area, sacramento to gilroy, if you will, region. And thats something well elaborate on a little bit. But putting it in that context is extremely important Going Forward for the project. First, we were quickly we validated the Critical Infrastructure improvement nature of this for the city, for the region. And, in fact, for the nation as well. Its important i think to remember that Major Projects are built on a foundation of trust. Trust by the public, by elected officials, by the stakeholders broadly defined. And building that loosely defined, the allimportant foundation of trust is what makes a wellconceived project. It takes it through what are inevitably difficult times for those projects. Its clear also that the train portion of the project would benefit from increased transparency and accountability. I would say it is it is more than just a local, its a nationwide phenomenon, that local projects, there are advances in transparency and in communicating with the public. And accountability that builds Public Confidence in projects Going Forward. And thats clearly a priority here. An additional recommendation, and i think a key one, is to really reposition the rail program. So that its developed and delivered by an interagency team. And it meets the definition, the term of a project of regional and national significance. As i mentioned earlier, while it does deliver local benefits that are crucial, it goes far beyond that as well. And if you think of Major Projects as a Building Block, this is one of the essential cornerstones of that Building Block of projects, that will help the larger region. The connectivity portions of the train project have really been undersold in the sense that the Public Benefits of the connectivity have not been broadly articulated, in thats a critical part of the Value Proposition for a project like this. Its its a regional effort with National Economic impact. The connectivity to other modes of transit and transportation are an essential part of what it does. This is a foundational project, in that sense. And its important to point out that it also maximizes the value and the utility of existing transportation and especially transit infrastructure investments, that have been made by the region to date. Whether its caltrain, highspeed rail activities, muni, bart or others. So it does serve that local, regional and national function. And as i mentioned before, were were referring to, as the train project, because downtown extension doesnt really do justice to what this project can accomplish. And doesnt get to the benefit value to the larger region. One of the key initial recommendations is to build the longterm and durable support of stakeholders and local regional, state and federal elected officials. It is an essential element of a project. If you look at the megaprojects nationally and internationally that have succeeded, one common characteristic is theyve spent the time and effort up front and its often considerable effort to build the Broad Coalition of support. The Value Proposition is very clear on why the project is important. And, for example, engaging the project directly here, talking about some of the larger goals. Like all transportation projects, this is a means to an end. And if the larger goals are things like social equity and environmental, economic development, affordable housing, whatever the goals are, how this project links to those goals is an essential part of the case Going Forward. An additional characteristic of projects that have succeeded, through difficult times, is theyve built internal and external champions. By internal champions we really mean more than just the project leadership. Its the organizations, plural, that would be required in this case to actually successfully deliver the project, as the internal champions. The external champions include all of you, but beyond that at the state and national and regional level, elected officials and Business Leaders and others, that will be there to continue to articulate why the project is important, why its a priority, and why its a call on scarce public funds throughout the entire project period. Explicitly talking about that Value Proposition and talking about it across internal and external champions, through the life of the project, is a critical success ingredient for a project. Major projects simply dont make it without that kind of ongoing, durable support. An additional recommendation, thats crucial as well, is with the rail project, we need to strengthen the projects claim on revenues, from both existing and emerging sources. For any project of this magnitude, it means making choices among other projects, the sequencing of projects and how they fit together, as a program of projects. The revenue side of it, we knew that one of the early tasks would be to separate the high confidence level of Funding Sources from the low confidence levels. And that does change over time. And it changes with the project gestation itself. But its clear that you can bifurcate the current Funding Sources into ones that you can have a relatively high level of confidence in. And ones that we need to work on. In addition, that rolls into a longer, longterm financial plan, that has substantial stakeholder input. Its one that, for example, needs to be on the radar screen at the federal level. It needs to be understood nationally in the National Priority list. And needs to be articulated, not just locally and regionally, but by the federal delegation as well. This project is currently one among many nationwide that can make a call on Federal Capital and make a case for it. Its important to point that that this really is a competition for limited resources, in particularly at the federal level. Fon du lac a if you ask yourself today where is this project on the state and importantly national, federal priority list. I think its clear that we have work to do. One of the key recommendations is to make sure that we position the project to successfully compete for both existing Funding Sources and emerging Funding Sources as well. So, for example, in new york city, the new Congestion Pricing Program is an emerging Funding Source for the transit program. At the federal side of it, the reauthorization of the