least, a small window to get this resolved and my, getting that right? that we basically, that we, all need to have this resolved, and within the next 60 days? >> i think that you are getting that right? that is part of our urgency and part of the urgency and we are trying to evaluate that the appropriate information and to be sure that we are looking at each system, and in a way that it helps to serves the operational needs and addresses it is long term needs and because we very much view both the transbay and the terminal center project, and the electrickfiation of the corridor and of the first two projects in the bay area, and we expect that the electrickfiation of the cal train is just the first step in that electrified operation and follow on high speed service in

the corridor will be a natural evolution of rail operations in the corridor and two distinct systems putting together their own program and so we have been very much working on an integrated process over the last couple of years, and you are right, the time line, is short. and that is part of the reason that we are working on the regular basis to get together, between the authority and cal train, as well as our funding partner and mtc and the ta and our other partners to insure that we are moving as quickly as we can, and given those time constraints. >> okay, thank you. >> and i think that one of the, and director lee can speak to this, one of the big challenges for cal train, is that the notion that they will be running dual service for many years, and which would make the higher platform more difficult which is why, i think that it could present a significant

funding challenge if we were going to try to get all of the cal train vehicles replaced, in a such shorter window. and but, that is, and i think that is perhaps part of the path towards the better 50 or 100 year solution. and >> if i may, what i might add to that and part of what is in the conversation in terms of the long term investment, in the corridor, with the advent of the cap and trade funds and it has given us the ability to advance the state wide program at accelerated level and one of the things that the authority is in the process of evaluating is to make a determination on how we can potentially accelerate in the investments in northern and southern utah while the central valley project continues at pace under construction as it is today. and so, looking at those opportunities to invest a little more aggressively shrinks the time line between td the commute between the services once it is operational

and follow on the high speed service in the corridor and how can we get to those necessary improvements to accommodate the future high speed service in the corridor and so that is part of the discussion that we are looking at and part of what may allow us to pursue a strategy that you are alluding to and which is how we can get to if we determined that a level boarding, scenario is possible, at our specific stations and pgc and that we can help and work with cal train and to help establish the facilities and that the program goes on and certainly, in a corridor of this length when you are talking either station improvements or the great separations or passing tracks and you are looking at a 20 or 25 year program and you are not talking about a 5 year program and so determining the sweep of the improvements over five or ten year increments over the future is one strategy that we are looking at in terms of how

we take the bite out of this very large apple. >> thank you. >> and director harper? >> yeah, i am, and i am quite impressed and relieved and i detect, absolutely no, preconception, or anything, and these are real engineering problems. and so, the question that arises, in my mind, is whether between and with this problem, what if any decisions do you need from this board? that you know, that it is a..., and is if a pronouncement of yeah, we want the level here and that is handy, fine, because, i have not heard from our people, exactly okay, for the purposes of constructing the terminal for phase one, and is it thering that we have to

decide? because we have to make the decision busy don't want to interfere with what is almost a national process, because i mean that i was in chicago last week and i rode the metro rail all over the place and i don't want to have the board come in and play, that this is what we want it there for, if we don't have to for the reason of the current construction and director harper, i think that we are very much in the process of putting together the tools for you to make that decision. and to provide this board, and our respective governing boards the options as a way forward, on this issue. so part of what we expect to accomplish, over the next several weeks is to make a

determination, of what the best way or what the menu of options as a way for it would be, and then give you, and our other governing bodies the opportunities to look at those option and consider them reasonably and to make a determination in terms of what you believe to be in the best interest of both, the i think that we have the comments and the transportation authority here. and so, actually, i don't know if i misheard you, i thought that you had mentioned that high speed rail rfp would go out the end of 2015. >> and at the end of this year. >> by the end of this year. >> and okay, and this is for, is there a specific schedule that you are trying to meet, because it is familiar with what is happening in the southern portion of the high speed rail. >> but it really is driven for the moment by the construction in the central valley and as

you are aware we are under construction and we are building the high speed rail between the cities. and that project is under way and as a result of the contribution, of the american recovery and reeninvestment act fund, the 3.3 billion from the federal government that is helping us move that project section forward, that project section, is expected to be completed by the end of 2018. and it is being constructed as is the state wide projects and all of the projects done in the segments that are done in a way that accommodates the usable segments and we expect to have, excuse me, we expect to have an operational segment in the central valley, by the end of that construction, as a result, we need to have, vehicles available for initially testing and certification, because, one of the many opportunities that the central valley project affords us is the opportunity to insure, that we can in fact, run our transit, 220 miles an

hour. >> is it roughly, a four year process, is that why it must go out at the end of the year. >> that is correct. >> are you confident in the next 60 days that we are going to come to an agreement on the compatible plan on the cal train and high speed rail. >> we have a group of very talented and very committed and thoughtful individuals in all of the organizations, that are involved in this. >> okay. >> and that was my question. >> okay. >> you are confident. >> okay. >> if by any chance we don't come to an agreement in the next few months is there a possible to delay the rfp? >> there is always an opportunity to be flexible, we are confident... >> that is not the ideal. >> it likely would not be, but, we will make every consideration to be sensitive, and respectful of all of the processes that we have to go

through and, we have been working very hard with the cal train staff to be sure that we are sensitive and respectful to their environmental process and that we are as supportive as we can possibly be to those efforts and so, we are committed to doing this as well. >> thank you. and then, i understand that you had said at the beginning of your presentation and i am not a technical person or anger, that for high speed rail to go as a speed that it does, that it is necessary to have a 50 inch platform, and for the equipment that you need in the train. >> is there ever, is there ever an option for a 24/25 inch, i asked the same question of cal train and so i just have to ask of the high speed authority as well. >> again, to both dave and brian's points, what we have to pursue, in our procurement is the broadest possible option for the vehicles to consider, for the ultimate procurement. 50 inches, in terms of seeking

proven technology, provides us the broadest possible options when you get into 25 inch boarding levels you get into much more of a custom vehicle, and fewer options in terms of the kinds of vehicles that you could consider for procurement and so that is what is really driving our consideration, >> the need for 2020 and the spectrum of vehicles available. >> so most are custom and are there any that are off of the shelf? >> are there 24 inches? >> not that meet the operational criteria. >> okay. >> that we are looking for. >> that is the challenge that we run into. >> i think that that is the challenge for both entities that they are both looking to get the broadest number of bids and the, you know, the broadest swath of the companies and it is different for either. and so there is going to have to be a give from one or the other, or there is some creative solutions that i can can't conceive of in terms of how to get that and i think, you know, just speaking from

san francisco, and from transbay joint powers authority, you know, our highest preference and need is really a common boarding platform, just because we are constricted in spa*is space for the tunnel and the under grouped and we can't change that shape and it might be possible in san jose, and i don't know (inaudible) at all to add tracks, and with the different boarding platforms but that, and we are not going to have that same flexibility and i would reiterate that from our end that we have to see a common platform and i am glad that you are country confident that we are going to get there in 60 days. >> you mentioned the cap and trade funds, are these funds to pay if there are different for the different in the cost of the high platform trains? >> that is part of what we are investigating right now, and it is certainly a consideration. >> okay. thank you so much. are there any other... >> director? >> if i understand from the

prepttation, that the 50 inch platform gives you more speed. >> yes. >> so, can i ask the same question for cal train, if what are the benefits that we have with what you are recommending the 22, 24, inch, if we had a higher platform. >> it is a different type of service what we are looking for is more capacity, and of the vehicle by vehicle, basis, the acceleration of the speed that is there with the high speed rail trains is not of any benefit to us because of the start and stop pattern and we don't run at those speeds and our top end right now is in the 70 mile an hour range, and so we don't need that kind of power capacity. and so it is better for us, to be able to go ahead, and have on a vehicle, by vehicle basis, the bi level which gives you more capacity on an individual train. and if it is a different

operating environment. >> okay, but looking at all of the various train manufacturers, within any, and it was, he looked at it and it was close to 50. >> there are, and there are some that are at 50, and the 50 do have challenges with how you might rate to that 50 inch platform. and because, as we go through, a change of platform heights, and as soon as we start getting 50 inch height platforms out there, that means that the balance of our fleet is no longer usable and so it is something that we have to go through a program, if we do settle on a 50 inch platform and how we implement that process and that is very challenging. >> could you tell me what the challenges are. >> the challenge is when you go out and you change the first station so that it has a 50 inch boarding height and if we don't have all of the new vehicles here, to be able to

service, and that level, that our existing fleet of vehicles can't service a 50 inth height and so it makes all of the vehicle not be able to function at those heights. >> you are going to be trying to make the changes to the stations while they are in operation and so it is a challenging environment to go ahead and make those changes. >> so i am looking forward to all of you getting together and figuring this out. >> your current trains are at 8 inch, right? >> that is correct. >> and so if you even go at the

24, inch platform, you going to have to do the ten to 15 year program for all of the stations. >> there is not anything to go to 24 or 50, and it will be a multiyear program and the vehicle manufacturers that we have spoken to, can manufacture the vehicle so that we can use the platforms, at the height that they are at right now. and as we start to migrate to the future and you will go ahead and use a trap door so that you will be able to go off in the 24 inch height and to be able to go back and forth until you get all of the stations of the 24 inch height and then you will assert a set of stairs and close it so that you are at the 24, and the challenge is can we find a way to make that process work to get to a 48 inch that is the challenge that is there. >> from a layman's perspective it seems that you have to do the upgrade and change regardless if we go to 24, 50. >> but the challenge, seems the

same to me either way. >> and it, and we have to do it to increase the capacity. >> right. >> we could stay with the current height of 8 inches but it is not going to give us the level boarding which will allow us to go ahead and increase the capacity. so, we will be stuck at this same place. >> okay. >> and again, it seems like, cal train is going to have that challenge, whether even if you go to 24, so if it is the difference between feflt and 24, and the up grades are going to need to happen in all of the stations. >> okay, great. any other comments or questions? i know that we have the san francisco county transportation authority here as well. to make some comments as well. should we go to them first? i believe that we have lee... (inaudible)

>> good morning, i am the deputy director for the san francisco transportation authority, and i am grateful for the opportunity to provide our agency, perspective this morning on the important issue of compatibility between the cal train and high speed rail. and the electrickfiation project will release the existing service with electrified service from fourth and king in san francisco, to the (inaudible) of san jose, and in early 2012, the california high speed rail business plan embraced a blended operation and under this structure, cal train and high speed rail authority which share the infrastructure on the existing right-of-way, cal train's decision about the design will fundamentally effect the service for the foreseeable future, while the california high speed rail authority has selected a vehicle, whose height is 50 inches, the cal train has

indicated to specify the vehicles whose height is 25 inches. and the differences of the floor height mean that the high speed rail will require separate and platforms and an associated infrastructure at three stations that represent the lion share of the rider ship. and compatibility is also about the vehicle width whereas the high speed rail if planning for a wide body vehicle, and about eleven feet wide, cal train plans to procure the vehicles as nine feet and eight inches in width, this becomes an issue as platforms. and if the platforms were built to accommodate the narrow bodied vehicle, the high speed rail vehicle will be too wide to fit in the space, if the platforms were built to accommodate the wider high speed rail, there will be a gap on the 12 inches and any cal train vehicle and would not need ada requirements.

and cal train has indicate that had it prefers a lower platform vehicle because they are readily available from vendors and better able to mix with the diesel fleet, if that fleet is phased out. and that indicates that the cost of retrofitting, the platforms will be more expensive, than retrofitting to 25 inch platforms. and while these issues are legitimate, they are also short term, and should cal train proceed with the vehicles, this action will forever lift the system's capacity. and severely constrained and blended operations within the san francisco corridor and oppose unnecessary capitol costs. and the cal train and the high speed rail authority must embrace as a policy imperative to accommodate rider ship demand. planned station of the transbay transit center of san francisco, and to the san

francisco airport station in mill brai, and the station in san jose will generate more than a third of the 110,000 passenger boardings, for 2040. and with 70 percent of planned bay area housing, and 30 percent of job growth expected to come from the cal train corridor and the area region depends on a high capacity, as sustainability. and compatibility is essential for the flexibility which will result in an over all service and more convenient schedules and easier transfers between the high speed rail and cal train, and will reduce the delays when there is an incident. they must embrace it as a policy imperative to avoid the did duplicate, and they will be forced to build a complete

underground station estimated cost of $50 million, and this can be avoided by using shared platforms, because of inka patbility, it is planned as a large elevated station with separate facilities for cal train and high speed rail. platform compatibility will allow the construction of more efficient and less expensive facility. cal train must embrace it with the high speed rail as a policy imperative in order to prepare for the future different from the past, the authority, relies on the model for all to attract, needed private investment, it can provide arrangements that could allow them to provide sustainability that go a long slot and yet to be achieved. cal train authority and regional partner should make the compatibility a policy imperative and cooperate in the

developing the technical and operational solutions. cost and benefit analysis should consider the entire system and not optimize one operator at the expense of the other and this must be undertaken with some urgency. thank you for your time and happy to answer the questions. >> i apologize for mispronouncing your name. any questions or comments? thank you, though, very much for that summary. >> i know that director reiskin needs to depart soon, so if there are any questions, i know that we have some final comments from director lee? i am sitting here wondering why i was sitting on the board hope thating jerry was here but he is not here. and this is a really difficult topic and if you were would

just allow me to say i generally like be very concise, but it needs some context. so, first, and foremost, i think that it is important for the public to know where we have come from. and because, between cal train and the tjpa and high speed rail, how we got here was not without coordination. and we have been working with each other, since high speed rail was born, and sense, for many years, we have tried to plan for what was a four track cal train system, coming to connecting to dtx and the transbay terminal center and that vision that was out there four years ago, contemplated a system that is twice the size of what we are planning for today. and so we have to understand that is where we started from. and when he had that vision,

which by the way, did not work with too many of the communities that that vision was killed, it was with a thought that there would be a landing place for us in high speed rail, at the tpc as well as fourth and king and it was going to be a much bigger, wholistic terminus in san francisco with multiple station and that is what was contemplated and coordinated in three agencies and so the public needs to be aware even though it seems like we are having this discussion for the first time that needs to be put away, because it would not without coordination, that all of the agencies were working, over many years, and then, even in the many years before that, and before i ever came here. having said that, i think that, the urgency in this, strategy,

is now that the division is half of the size of what it was before and the need for efficiencies is even more imperative than what it was before, it is sparking a whole lot the questions like this, which is what happens if we don't have the shared comment platform? in the previous vision they were not shared, they were dedicated for cal train and they were dedicated for high speed rail. and it worked at the time. i think that they were legitimate questions as to we don't have that space speshly with san francisco interest in developing in the fourth and king yard and we are trying to figure out how to minimize the footprint for the transit facility and to make a decision as possible. and so having said that, jpb, is very much committed to looking for a solution, and when dave couch was here, we said that there is nobody who should not want or would not want the common shared

platforms and that the issue is not about what is that ideal situation, and but i think that many people have brought this up, is if that is our policy decision in our goal, and there are compromises to be made by the various agencies. and so we have to layout what the options are and what the trade ups are and what the compromises are, and if someone got what they needed, the solution would have been found many months ago and, that solution where everybody wins at every aspect is not there and which is why we are having this struggle right now. and i will tell you, that the use that we have been working on, swre been working on it for over ten years, and we are a little frustrated and we get that we are working with a blended system and the reasons for looking at it are leg git and we are committed to doing that and so leg git that we are either looking at vehicles that the request of our partners on a single level, car.

and we look at a single level car we can't maximize capacity but it is a compromise that we are willing to look at and the cars are more expensive and everyone is trying to contain the costs and we are also looking at that as well and so everything is on the table and the expectation that it was like to have said and as soon as the request to bring this back to the tjpa and we will need to bring it back to the jpb as well as the high speed rail and whoever asks for involvement in this discussion, is there will be trade offs, and there will be up sides and there will be down sides, and i want to clearly lay that expectation because as we have been working through the options already, we have already started and there is more to come. and there is not a win for everyone on every aspect. and i want to set that expectation very clearly and it is going to be a difficult decision and we are very

appreciative of the funding partners participating in the debate and the challenges of the discussion and we have high hopes that we will come to a good compromise and out come. and that is going to have lasting benefit out 40, 80, or 100 years. >> thank you. director lee. and actually, that context in history was really helpful, especially for some of us who have ever been involved for as long, as you have. and just to say a couple of things, and i hope that we can hear this again, next month just because we are on a pretty expedited time schedule on this you. i think for my frame, our regional partners and you know that we have to come up with the compatibility policy, and coordinate and developing the technical and operational solutions, and we should look at the cost benefit and analysis for the entire system as director lee mentioned, and not just optimize one operator at the expense of the other and i guess that both operators

have the same goals and are looking at lowering costs and looking at the broadest swath of bids, and it seems like, you know, they are the same for the different platform and inches and hopefully that we can come to some resolution, because there are some urgency, to allow the cal train to move forward, and of course, we have what is happening on the southern end of the high speed rail and i know that there are some clear deadlines there. and i also would just ask jpa to weigh in on the specific staff, and to clarify, what each option will look like, for the terminal, and i appreciate that the transportation authority is also here to provide, the technical assistance, and i do want to emphasize into the future for the generations to come and i think that the outside is clear for everybody.

and for all of our systems. and there are going to be serious costs initially that we have to work together, and to be able to find that gap, in funding and i would really like to understand, what it is going to take to achieve this compatibility and next month and hopefully we will be halfway through the process if it is really is 60 days that we are going to be looking at what the blended system is going to look like, and reality wise, and tech sxli from the engineering standpoint and i also, understand that there are some questions or kind of different proposals that are being raised about the governance for the cal train and now that you know, because of the connections with sam trans that there might be a decision about spinning it off into its own entity and changing the way that the leadership occurs, and from the three counties and i know that they are currently pointed and i know that there is a suggestion recently that the city council with the senator hill that we