methodology that will gusts the best probability of delivering on the 2019 date. we have a line for environmental clearance to be delivered by the end of february not the clearance but the draft eir. once we've got our owner in place we're looking to embark on a period of industry outreach and issue an r f q if may. just to talk about what's the blended system is. and how we're going to blind that high speed rail pr, you know, we're curling anticipating that high speed rail will be delivered in the 20026 temp and our project provides a increment

there will be needed improvements and, of course, the extension to downtown but also high speed rail is anticipated to have is a station at milling before a and we're looking at additional grade separation as necessary that we the complete the l t k study that looked at 5 potential areas not decided where they will be but the passing tracks will enable the 4 high speed rail trains. we need to taking a look at system improvements not only for the high speed rail up to 110 but those will require additional funding. throughout the process we've been cropping with key folks no

san francisco. our engineering group has been working with the taurj to review designs and provide approvals as well as looking at the d t y. we've been collaborating the tjpa study and most recently we're continuing to work on a blend system concept of systems not only with tjpa but high speed rail at the table. oakland we're working with the city of san francisco we're going to be working with them on the i 280 study and, of course, san francisco in the lead as susan alluded to we did just complete the railway yard on fourth and king that was a study that caltrain took the lead on

we did at the request of san francisco. i'll go into more detail about the two options that could really potentially be win-win opportunity on fourth and king. just to focus a little bit on the 2013 rail yard reduction study i mentioned it was at the request of san francisco. it was a technical exercise that looked at, you know, establishing the needs of caltrain and then looking at how we might be able to satisfy those operation overlook needs in the context of san francisco's objectives. i see the prince the principles

also continue to enhance electrified caltrain's not only to support it. in terms of the evaluation summaries we assumed that caltrain will be electrified in 2019 with that 25 percent diesel and 75 percent electrified and a subsequent to the 2019 electrification there will be the downtown extension as well as the high speed rail on the peninsula. we looked at the caltrain's would continue to terminate at fourth and king and being that 2019 is our date for electrified

service so we did want to take a look at how to accommodate some level of development while continuing to support the blend service vision with the initial caltrain. here we just wanted to articulate what the basic needed functions at the northern for caltrain assuming we have 6 trains per peak hour per direction we still anticipate robust service with the warriors service and their essential maintenance and light rail functions that need to happen just to look at in order to provide the 6 peak hour trains we need to we need to a restore between 10 and 11 trains.

not only to support the operations but support customer functions we take a look at how we might be to provide robust customer bicycle facilities and access type of facilities as well as facilities for crew and a staff. and then in terms of what i'll call a transitional commissions living function we've identified the fourth and king terminal as the "'question: key place to commission our fleet once it's delivered that function allergies take we're anticipating roughly i want to say a year and a half. so while it's temporary it will take a significant period of time. so just to talk about the preliminary findings i'll forward to this graphic you've seen before. the study really did identify two options we thought were

possibilitys that will balance the oufbdz on one or accommodating best possibility of accommodating 9 caltrain operational needs as well as supporting development and i'll reiterate the area in the purple blue would be arranged for caltrain operational needs as well as high speed rail needs and then the pink areas would provide square footage for certain development and in both of those cases it's anticipated in addition to the pink areas that's the frontage it would be the capacity of pompous investment over the top of the facility. there are some key different

between those options. the option to the left acquit possibility could support are all of the caltrain operational needs. particularly given the assumes that the rail yard as it stands today would be reconfigured into on that would be able to accommodate service much more efficiently and the second one we call action b on the study provides for much more development potential role it does provide sort of a more complex approach to caltrain's operations there's only a certain amount of railway functions that could be comedy. this particular option needs to

have some sort of an off sight inspection areas for trains to be located somewhere we did a brief scan of where many of those places might be in san francisco. and i think that was trying to take a look at what the operations @al peculiarities for the off sight storage areas. having one of those areas in conjunction with this figured out and king terminal that is the preliminary part where the resource occurs there are capital costs but there are additional dead heading and operational costs to get trains from the off sight to the downtown terminal. so implicit both of those options really merit some

further study. the real benefit of this study was to be able to provide input to the other studies there was a third option we tabled and this the the total yard removal but this requires significant effort in a completely different study if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> okay should we go we'll go the opposite way. >> one question obviously there's strong support in the region of electrification of the train we want to make sure it didn't get detailed you well articulated in the presentation the many benefits of electrified service versus diesel it's

quieterer and faster and cleaner which is very relevant the community you serve. given all that i was wondering why the plan to continue diesel service for i guess an unspecified length of time do we know how know that is while dole continues to move into san francisco >> so i'll say this one of the things that the blended the blended service has a as abeyance to transition ourselves to the service. the 2019 date is serendipity we have the rest of the fleet it's

required in 2000 and after you consider that thirty year alive as the life of the vehicle we're looking at 2030 when this would be replaced with electrified fleet. really the basis of it was to make a pursuant of him be decision. i'll say this if money fell out of the sky to be able to replace that with electrified rolling stock certainly we'll consider it >> and is that something the tjpa has brought has brought forward it's preschooler a procurement life that will keep trains returning after

electrification it complete; is that right. >> it is something we've brought up to m t c. >> the comment they're a lot of sdurgsz about the northern term news in the presentation it was clear that the northern term news would be the north by a transit center not fourth and a king fourth and king is only relevant until it's built than a different discussion. the previous presentation the long-term view recognizing that until the final northern term news is built absolutely caltrain has accommodations to

be take care of for fourth and king >> i'm glad for that clarification you kept saying revenue service at fourth and kinky didn't know it would be continued that fourth and king would stay as a functioning decision. >> i mentioned we're continuing a concept of operation study that's really a study that's gone and it's piggy backing on the rail yard study. what we need to do is fourth where we can accommodate all of the operational needs another caltrain we're looking to see how much capacity the transbay can have for revenue and non-revenue we may still need

additional will storage as well as at&t park. we're commissioner moran all those things but the focus is on providing service to transbay in the long-range term >> i don't know what the variation would be it would be annoys to say hear caltrain say once everything is ready to go platforms are in we're dedicated to transbay and i'm not sure i'm hearing that. the other thing is with your blended system as i said earlier in the presentation i think you may be 13 to 15 years off when the high speed rail is coming in pr from what i casually observers the mriblgdz in san mateo and upper santa clara

county are still very, very dicey with accommodating high speed rail but that's what the impression i'm getting. so if there were the case and 2040 a 50 timeline will a complete transfer service from caltrain to the dear done station >> it's definitely something we'll have to look at at with the long-term milestones certainly, if that's far as the high speed rail stopping at santa fe we'll looked at the transferring a significant

number of people to caltrain and how to accommodate that. >> yeah. because that to me seems quite possible. >> director lee. director martin luther >> tights great to have you hear. >> that's not usually what we hear. >> for caltrain so we need to be talking with you a lot more like this and i'd love to be having briefing on those various studies you're working on so we can said what you're finding and give input. that whole business list of study lots of are really

relevant we as a board need to spend more time with caltrain. i guess you know, i have heard this before to have the plan to keep running diesel service for multiple decades over electrification is finished because the money is not there to electrify the transportation. just because you've bought diesel vehicles you have to make an oufk evaluation there are all kinds of practitioner all complications there's the costs there to continue diesel. i know money never falls from the sky i'd love to understand the operational implementation of continuing dole service as

well as how much more money you need to a phase that out and what the options are. i'll say this to speak to director harper's point the high speed rail opponents in the peninsula phasing out diesel service helps to reduce to idea of a negative impact on the community helping to myth the problem if we can get rid of the diesels trains. i understand you have to have a plan to keep them running but i'd like to think we're trying to get you the money you need to a phase out the diesel trains. to the issue of the caltrain

railway yards. there's a capital and other cost if you have the trains stored somewhere he will we need to understand the capital and operational costs. when the dp x is finished and there's caltrain service to transbay you'll dead heading because the train storage is not going to be at transbay you're doing that your set up to manage if we're talking about an incredulously cost for dead heading we need to understand that cost so as and region we can make a judgment as to whether it's worth it or not

>> i've got 20 thoughts revolving in my head. first, i want to thank michelle and staff important all of the work that's happening and i think when i wanted to share and it's not for sympathy but for appreciation for where we are. this is a challenging project fourts it's not a green fold project and we're trying trying to convert diesel into a new technology it's not just the building of addressed infrastructure to our rail system but a culture it's a par define shift to a new technology so there's a lot of freaking out going on but especially with our rail operators. they have engaged so i wanted to thank the team for that. i also want to really thank the

tjpa in addition to the whole region and the f r organization, you know, getting the commitment for the quarter electrification project was really a big deal we were not able to get funding forever. we scraped every single dollar from other folks so that appreciation is heartfelt from all the tjpa and the staff of caltrain. if i can just comment on the distinction that edward reiskin made about the long-term vision associated with what san francisco is doing and sort of of the immediate incredulously project including electrification. i think all of the questions are very relevant and i think the situation we're in is there's

been a lot of work done over the last several years and what's been challenging is all the moving parts. i know you know this better than me but before we were planning a 4 track caltrain strm and we weren't going to have the 10 trains per hour per direction we were going to have 2410 to 12 for caltrain and high speed rail. the community approach where we've landed is a lot less than that. we're in the middle of this and asking questions like well, if caltrain's is going to go the the tjpa what about is it 24

transcripts now that it's 10 those are the questions ambassador people are saying if you're stopping at the fourth and king why do you have to stop at the fourth and a townsend those are all preblended decisions that were made so i think now that we've at least open caltrain's end we've made policy commitments for the blended systems that works for our stakeholders we welcome the due diligence necessary with that implementation to figure out and king we're committed to looking at that we'll continue to provide resources and continue to work with tjpa i'm sure we'll have the perfect answer in 12 months >> thank you to the board members and also for caltrain's

for the presentation. this is clearly where the board wants to spend a considerable amount of 7, 8, 9 it's great to have the presentation from caltrain and the planning department. we're know this is dialog we need this is important to the region if we don't you'll work together so that's why is. agencies are working together. i look forward to further conversation we're going to open up to the public >> we have one speaker. >> welcome thank you for coming. >> director harper to your point i have a daughter that's

leaning to me on the disney trips for the high speed rail. as i'm sure you're aware of the authority has been working closely with caltrain staff open the electrification project as well as the implementation excuse me. as well as the implementation of positive train control and the advanced train signal system we've been coordinating our effort as the transbay project moves toward implementation so the high speed rail tarnishes have not limited. we're working with san francisco and their staff to capacity their efforts to consider future

development opportunities. in each case the authority staff has been committed while insuring their investment in no way limits or recycles high speed rail. either in the peninsula or the entire blended system along the caltrain corridor. servicing the city of san francisco of service that matches international high-speed service is a critical oufk of the authority >> to that end it is important to note those projects as those projects are developed we must sure to work on the future high speed rail are comedy those include ongoing parishioner overlook capacity at the fourth

and a king development and mains of 3 tracks to the transbay terminal and full scale platforms to accommodate high speed rail operation that mother and father maximizes service. the authority is eager to continue to work with our community folks and stakeholders. thank you >> thank you. are there any other comments. so seeing none, we'll move into our next item >> to the agreement of density audit to extend the com

satisfaction. >> this is extending our auditors contract for two years it's straightforward. >> you want approve. >> we have a. >> martin luther consenting. chair kim that's 5 i's and item 79 is approved arrest item 10 the updated initial report and the resolution of project for the allocation to 11 with or with the amount of 11 portfolio plus million >> i'm happy to answer any questions but this is the standard process of receiving fund from a mc.

>> moved. >> second. >> director lee and a martin luther. >> vice chair harper. >> chair kim. >> puffed. >> this is the approving of the minutes from. >> can we call item 11 and 12 together. >> 11 being approving the minute of the last meeting and the january 24th meeting. >> move approval. >> so we have a motion i did want to make sure that director edward reiskin requested for the last meeting minutes marry p. >> mohammed. >> with that both stems