And that we agreed on them. I just want to take a minute to read our initial finding because i think its important and its its its a key starting place for us. The d. T. X. Rail Program Offers critical mobility value to the bay areagilroysacramento by area and country. And it should continue to be pursued with important advancements on accountability and services should be realized at Salesforce Transit Center as soon as possible. This took a little bit of time to craft, and i just wanted to read it to this board to underscore the effort and commitment by the panel, that we are committed to this pan project. That was the basis for which we kicked off this panel. So with that, a few of the consensus recommendations that i just wanted to highlight for you today. And director chang mentioned this in her opening remarks. You know, this is a project, right or wrong, that has been seen as a San Francisco project, and i think as as has been rielted, it is more than that. It is a it is a regional realized, it is more than that. It is a regional project, and it is a partnership amongst agencies for these big projects. We, too, see that a would be bes suited for delivering this. And really, this is a project of regional and national significance, and that is n not that may be of course. This is not a throwaway line. This is a federal and region statute, that with advocacy, is an opportunity to leverage federal funds in terms of meeting that bar. Theres some work to do, but i think that project is a great candidate. The next recommendation is really redefining this Value Proposition, and i think this a lot has happened since this project has been adopted into the r. T. P. In terms of the region. There is a hunger for more rail service, and there are a number of small to medium to large megaprojects that have initiated development in their own right that this project has been opportunity to harness and plan for, and those are just if you look at the intermodal station at dierdorn, and obviously in the b. A. R. T. , ccjpa, and caltrain and discussion for a second rail crossing, and the opportunity to have connections between at Salesforce Transit Center make a whole lot of sense. But that doesnt just happen on its own, so thats one of the recommendations of redefining that Value Proposition and the benefit statement for this project. And then finally, i think theres really an opportunity to rename and rebrand this project, and it is. Its a program of projects, and so when you look at 4th and king or a new rail yard or a 22nd or 26th street station rail yard or extension, theres an ability to talk about these programs together. The regional connector project in los angeles is a good example of being able to kind of harness this. Its this idea, and i think its also easier to frankly market to supporters in the public and also elected officials. So thats one of the other recommendations. As i mentioned, megaprojects are all unique, but one comm commonality is they take a long time to fund and produce. We need strong support from federal, state, and local elected officials. Not just the current ones, but the next generation. So that really takes a lot of coordination and working with federal officials in washington to make sure they see this as a preferred project. Were competing against projects not just in new york, but projects in los angeles. The other recommendation is we need to engage the public directly and make sure that the Value Proposition and that the shared goals of this program are known around Environmental Remediation and protection and environmental development. We heard a lot of this from the shake holders to have the operators agree on the scope of this project, both timing and what will their contributions be and ultimately how it will serve their customers, so thats a really important aspect of this. At this time, im going to turn it over to my colleague, ignacio, to walkthrough the rest of our recommendations. So relating to the rail program funding, which is one of the major components of what the expert panel was tasked to look into, one of the main kind of findings or recommendations of the programs already strong claims on existing sources, any project of this nature, y. As john will know, we have very ambitious emerging rail projects, both caltrain on the peninsula, as well as transbay crossing project, high speed rail, so its a very ambitious regional and megaregional project that this is the linchpin. So in terms of the revenues, the funding plan that we looked at, theres an existing plan that has a number of Funding Resources that are planned to be used. So establishing a longterm Financial Plan is one of the main recommendations of the panel. One of the key aspects of that is the federal participation in the funding plan, and one of the things that we were able to ascertain is that really, theres a strong need to maintain the project in the greater stream at the federal level, and that its high on the National Priority list so that the congressional delegation fully understands and supports that task of keeping the project high on that priority list. And it is one of many projects nationwide that is competing for those limited federal resources, so its a critically important thing, and we believe there is work to do to successfully compete for those sources, federal Funding Sources through the type of positioning that john was explaining. Theres, of course, a number of efforts going on here in the bay area and in the megaregion. For example, the other efforts being led by various parties. Now in terms of governance and oversight, i know this is the most titillating part that Everyone Wants to hear about, i know that most of the work is still ongoing in this regard, and were looking forward to having a final set of recommendations and a presentation to the sfcta board in september where well be able to talk more specifically about this. But ill just recap what i said previously in our previous presentation. First of all, the panel did review and study what are the best practices and Lessons Learned not only from around california but nationally and internationally so we would build into our thinking what those best practices are. And from that, we identified a set of common key criteria for success. I wont go through all of them, but some of the keynotable ones is definition of roles key notable ones is definition of roles, and project transparency. Sometimes we take it for granted, but its important it always be front and center, which is a focus on the customer, on the end user, and that should be a guiding principle in thinking of delivering outcomes for customers. But theres also more granular issues such as, for example, the need for independent assurance, independent advice that really challenges the thinking ahead of major decisions. And this is a really important aspect, and i think its consistent with the review panel made a similar finding and recommendation that we should be thinking about. But theres also other things such as project delivery and operational expertise, the importance of having those in a very strong way. Any of these aspects that i just mentioned, and theres many others, can easily make or break the success of a project. And in fact, theres a study that was done by the Mackenzie Company that led this study, sort of managed the panel, herding the cats there, and that study indicated that two thirds or roughly two thirds of megaproject cost overruns and delays are directly attributable to governance and organizational issues, so that really kind of emphasizes the importance of making those decisions and having the right strategy with respect to that. I would say that, just to echo previous comments that have been made, there is no single recipe for success. Yes, there are common characteristics across the case study that john mentioned and many others, but ultimately for a megaproject such as this, and especially if we think of it in terms of are real program, you have to look at it in terms of financial and other realities of the program. So just to recap in terms of organization, our definition is of the architecture of the team and organizational structure is an approach that sustains the support at the regional and the National Level is ultimately the goal that were that were looking to achieve. Moving on, one of the things that the panel was asked to look at is, say, okay, thats all very good and fine with these big picture strategy issues. What do we do in the next two years . What is it how do we go about implementing this strategy . So this work plan that you see here on the screen is is a something that the panel developed as a panel in response to that. And really, ultimately, regardless of who executes on that strategy on the work plan and whatever work plan ends up being adopted, the most important thing is that it should be it should prioritize expediting and energyizing the delivery of the project. So and we believe as a panel the best way to do that is with a strategy as reflective in the previous remarks and that would be implemented something along those lines. Now in developing this work plan, we recognized that there were two Critical Path issues for the project. One relates to funding. This is a multibilliondollar project, and the funding identifies we could say very high Funding Sources, a lot of it, but not all of it, and the delta is significant. And then, the second thing is a resolution of a number of key issues with the two rail operators, highspeed rail and caltrain. So with that in mind, with the goal of achieving rail service to the transit terminal at the earliest possible date and specifically thinking of a goal of achieving that by 2029, which has been the published date for start of service, we worked back from that and then identified a and this is what you see in this graphic, the next what would be the next major milestone to make project toward that the ultimate goal. And so working back from that, we identified that the key milestone is the start of procurement or the start of the process of contracting the construction contracts. And so we we looked at the the plans as they had been laid out, and we saw that mid2021, i believe, is the date when or roughly the timing or the start of that activity. The twoyear work line is working back from that milestone, which is the red diamond in the lower right hand corner of the diagram. And then, we worked we developed a series of tasks that are aligned with the recommendations of the strategy. We made a series of four key decision points, which are the blue points in the diagram in a certain sequence. So without painting it with too much of a broad brush, ill go into what that is. So the first series of tasks would be related to whether to adopt these recommendations of the extra panel, whether its all of them or some of them, and then, theres a number of decisions that would have to be taken also in relation to governance as well as the actual tasks themselves. With a number of agreements and m. O. U. S and so on that would have to be worked out in order to implement certain tasks. So that would have to be an early task in that process that would be related to that. That would then allow that project to proceed with the start of the next task, which is the repositioning and redefinition of the project. That involves a series of tasks really related to the funding plan, looking at the potential for phasing, looking at what are the realities for start of service, looking at california highspeed rail in the d. T. X. And Transit Center . And those would culminate in a selection of phasing and funding strategy aligned with the work of that task. That contains in it a number of tasks related to engineering, completing there may be aspects of the Engineering Design that has been done to date that needs to be further developed, cost estimating, risk analysis. There are a number of things that are embedded into that set of tasks. The second one and happening in parallel with it would be related to governance and oversight. The the thinking being that the decisions being taken in the first task is really pacific numb task number two, in the yellow bars, what that governance and ta organization would look like. That would be the task itself would be to determine those things. And then finally, also in parallel because these things, they have a certain sequence, but they have to be developed currently in an integrated way, is the very important task of the selection of a project delivery option. And i will talk about that more in the next slide. But that sequence of tasks would allow you to eventually make that decision on a project delivery method that would then support the milestone of start of procurement. Okay. So moving on to project delivery. Like i said, first and fore first and fore first and most important factor relating to the projects is governance. The second choice and the project delivery method. So this is a really important set of tasks that needs to be developed very, very deliberately and really applying best practices. So first, i would say a structured market sounding process is really important. Time and time again in my career ive seen Infrastructure Projects that we thought that the project was well defined and well selected and we went to bid. And then, a contract came along and offered a completely different idea that actually saved a lot of time and money. And so this the ability to do the market sounding is a way to receive that type of feedback from the industry and it can be done in a structured fashion from early on, but to do it as part of the project delivery Selection Process so that is informs not only it informs not only the project itself but also the selection of the delivery. Second is conducting an analysis of delivery options. Doing that with no bias and rigor. And then, once that is done, the idea here is of course to target all of the every day ongoing on delivering that option, and that includes the scoping of preliminary engineers so that the that project delivery is aligned with funding and in thinking of the rail delivery. So just to finalize, the final item in this is the agreement of providing the services to the rail operators. All of this is to really build a goal of set of specifications with a high level of confidence which would allow the project to be delivered. So these are the recommendations that we will be building on in our final report which will also of course include, as i mentioned, the recommendations of governance. So with that, ill pass it back to john. Thank you, ignacio. So this is the timeline of really where were at today before you. The plan now is to go back to the t. A. Board with our final report on september 10. Thats obviously subject to change, depending on a lot of ongoing discussion with stakeholders, and we you can see in between now and the 10th, those are still continuing. So were really not wanting to come out with any breaking news today or any surprises on the 10th because this has been a real iterative process with the stakeholders. I think that has been very valuable for the panel, and the panel has really embraced a lot of the input from active participants to date. So with that, im happy to answer any questions that you might have and appreciate the opportunity to give you an update today. Great. Thank you for the presentation today. Any questions . Director reiskin . Director reiskin so one question, and then some comments. The question is on the funding slide, there was one subbullet that i didnt understand what it meant and it set Something Like said affordability limits for initial operating phase. Can you explain what that means . This one . Fl are wi well, i think that as i go in as o as that as ignacio says, we have to match the funding phase with the high level of competency thats available. I think theres an affordability limit is, thats maybe a technical way of just saying math. Director reiskin so when you say initial operating phase, are you saying what weve been calling more or less d. T. X. , just the compensation of the Transit Center . It could be. It could be something less and could be Something Different. I think part of what were also reflecting is the timing and need of the two operators has changed, and so i want to make sure if theres a if theres a available path to do something less now that doesnt preclude high speed rail, that should be something less than what were outlining today. Also, though, looking at what exactly the decisions are going to be made around those other complementary projects and the need to advance them enough to know. But so it it has to match at least whats viable on the funding side, you know, with caltrains needs. And then not to preclude highspeed rail, but you may be doing Something Different when that service is ready to come up the peninsula to d. T. X. Or whatever you want to call it or whatever its called. Director reiskin okay. Aside from potentially deferring the townsend street station, its kind of hard for me to see what you want to do, extending the tracks from point a to point b. Its a little hard to see to kind of how to downscope. Again, this may be separate from whats called deferring the station. At 4th and king. Yeah. At townsend. Director reiskin i know theres a lot of work that went into that. I think the presentations on recommendations are great, without the understanding of what that affordability and initial operating phase means, solidifying the funding is something very important. It needs to be done. I think the focus on project delivery needs to be done. I think theres the potential of dovetailing for some of afsma projects. The overall recommendation that we do, what well get, Train Service to the Transit Center most expeditiously, i think, is the most important and overriding. And so with that in mind, the recommendations that you have yet to make on governance and oversight with what give me some concern. I think you had said that it could be just kind of adjusting what we have today and maybe on the line of the afsma funding, and sfmta and project controls and other ar