those programs for the laborers up. about 13 percent at this point. >> so we don't need to over shoot going forward to recover back to the goal. >> right. >> they have not made them available, but not not the apprentice themselves. >> >> thank you, that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> and so could we call the next item, please? >> the next item is the citizen's advisory committee update. >> thank you. >> and i see that our vice chair, bruce aggott. thank you for being here.

>> this report will focus on two items as a focus to the report at the last board meeting on september 11th. and the first item is regarding the formation of the special task district for the transbay, district, and it is disappointing the developers, backed out of the tentative deal, discussed in early september. and however, we are pleased and we want to thank the board of supervisor and all involved for approving the resolution, for the formation of the special tax district up holding the cfd tax rates as outlined in the tcpd and it will be unfortunate and disappointing if the developers move forward with any lawsuits that will jeopardize the completing of the transbay, transit center,

and the top park and the downtown extension and the improvements and on the second item, regarding the opportunity to revisit the uniform height and level boarding for cal train and high speed rail, i attended the cal train rail panel discussion, in mountain view on september 29th. >> and the panel members, were dave cal train, and ben from high speed rail and brian from the tjpa project team, and thompson from the high speed rail group and jillian the director of the policy of the city and county of san francisco and this panel was moderated by dina, and when i attended that discussion, really reaffirmed that the issue must be and that issue must be studied closely, providing the funders of the high speed rail and mou and the opportunity to collaborate on

upcoming decisions. we must maximize our operational flexibility and capacity, and passenger accessibility. and it is critical, that the appropriate agencies and funding partners, be informed on the assumptions, alternatives, trade offs, and decision-making criteria to make the best decisions now. decisions to design and build in any up front constraints must be analyzed closely and approved at the highest levels and the key issue now is front and center is the question of uniform height and level boarding, which will drive the vehicle procurement decisions and these decisions will impact transportation, options, and our economy, for decades to come. and i am glad to see the

discussion has proceeded to this point and that an update will be provided at today's board meeting and we look for toward to your questions, thoughts and suggestions, on a path forward. and thank you so much for this opportunity, to present, and our report and i will be happy to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for presenting it and also for your comments on the upcoming presentation, and i will also have the same questions, and any discussion or questions? >> thank you, mr. vice chair, and thank you. >> and the next item. >> public comment, and you have camille lawrence. >> and so we are calling public comment and we do have one speaker card come up. and if anyone else would like to speak, just line up. >> your name was just called.

>> ladies and gentlemen, of the audience, and commissioners, chair kim, and mr. harper, i am here today for the same reason that i was almost a month ago. going back to 2009, the sfmt, director as well as the mayor's city and county of san francisco, started appointing cronies to the sfmta taxi commission or taxi services authority or agency. and they have been advising you on the taxing matters on this construction project. people with no capacity whatsoever, in the taxi business and the attorneys from the mayor attorney office payroll some of them are in and out of substance abuse tanks on a monthly basis and have been giving you advice on what to do

with the taxi business in the city and county of san francisco and on a transbay, joint power authority and i am here to tell you that i have started an investigation with the civil service commission. and to how the sfmta hires for the taxi business, as well as their own personnel and i have asked for an investigation of the civil service hiring practices of san francisco and almost how every department in this city can bypass the merit system and the civil service system to pick the political and crony appointees in the department with no background checks whatsoever, i am not here to discuss that, i am here today to tell you and give you seven to 8 copy ts of the letter that i submitted to the civil service commission on this fact and here, on that that i am glad to hear, that there are veteran programs here to promote this project and work within this project because in the nine years that i have been speaking for the

taxi agencies, i have never heard them talk about the veterans once. and i am a united states naval veteran and we have the wife of the president of the united states coming to town to make sure that some of these guys are not homeless and some are them are well trained and some of them have problems, yes, but i am glad to see that you are putting some of them to work. i am happy with that. it is a big issue today. and last but not least is this, i thank you for the letters that you have given me and the 8 years thatvy spoken before the sfmta and they have have not responded with one letter as if i don't exist on this earth. but i do. and so i am going to leave with you that and i am going to leave you with 7 copysies and ies they will go before the

ethics commission and i thank you for this. >> and thank you, for your comments, and thank you also for your advocacy for the veterans here in the city and a very important issue. and is there any other public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is now closed. >> and can we please call on the first item on the regular calendar? >> item 8 requestcy presentation by the california high speed rail authority and the peninsula corridor joint powers board on boarding height. >> good morning, directors. and thanks for the introduction. and i just want to lay where we are at this point, and the up front negotiations between the parties are now under way which is the good news. the current layout of the platforms are what we negotiated with high speed rail and cal train, and some four

years ago. and it is not perfect, and it has two platforms for the tracks and the high speed rail with the high level boarding at 50 inches and two platforms for the cal train with a 24-inch and we have not built any of these platforms and we are not going to build anything until phase two when we actually know what vehicles we are going to get. so just, to look at where things are, worldwide, high speed rail has throughout europe mandated a 30 inch platform height. and the vehicles are used and are not 30 inch height. and they are 50. and so you have put on a tgb, and you have to walk on the level and then drop the stairs to actually get where you want to go, and fine if you don't have the long legs. and on the other hand, the two

differences from that, that is five... because they have to have the same platform height for the different countries they don't have ada. we do. and we need to do or abide by it and building a new facility. and japanese system of 40 or 50 years ago and it is designed the trains and the platforms to be identical and that is the 49 inch that they use. and the united states has one example that they expressed on the east coast where they are using 48 inches and the rest of the world is doing it differently. now, i have yet to introduce the subject but we are talking about the benefits of boarding heights, and with the transbay. and just as you see, when you start off with the commuter rail in the morning, and there are the long distance rail, you need the trains of either end and you cross off from one end

and the dead ahead. and 50 or 300 miles. and in storage for start up will be better if we can store the trains of different platforms, and they are all the same height and we can get more trains in here. remembering the initial system is looking at only two high speed trains per hour and so you don't need two platforms. or tracks, and going up before, when they have got more passing tracks, cal train on the other hand is running a ride ridership and a lot of at least five trains that there are right now and you are forgetting downtown and we need a little bit more than two faces if we can come up with a way of operating it. and that is not going to be easy, but definitely, something that we need to look at it and we need the operational flexibility if a train breaks down and you want to be getting a ride on the different

platform and you don't want to stop the whole system. >> one of the things that we negotiated recently because we are doing the computer simulation to see how many trains that you can get and out depending on the layout and we reduced, the times and the longer that you leave a train at a dead end station and the less trains that you can put in per hour and these numbers are now being agreed and they are, reduction from what we are originally started of 40 minutes per cal train and they have moved, quite a long way. and reduction from the 60 minutes to 40 and again if the late means the train was coming in late they can turn it around to get back on schedule. and this just shows the layout of where we are and because of the moment we have got this arrangement, where cal train is on one side, cal train is dropped the possibility if a train breaks down of being able to break down because it is a

single point of failure, just one crossing coming into it and hence the two ones that were added in. and which are not ideal, but they were in negotiated and agreed in the last... (inaudible) and they have crossings on the curves which are not the best of place to do it. so, we are continuing to negotiate, on all of our vehicle procurements and i have now lost track of the numbers of of meetings that we have been to and we had a good one yesterday, and people are important, and i hope that you will or my goal is to reach that agreement on common level warning to meet, an ada and that means that the height and also the working vehicles because of the ada and you can't jump across a gap and you have the different width vehicles and you will hear the presentation shortly. this slide has been around since i joined, seven years ago and it shows, one of each train on the same platform. and that is still my hope.

>> thank you. >> dr. reiskin has a question. >> just to, i think that you spoke clearly about the benefits of the common boarding platform, could you kind of looking at it in the opposite, if we don't achieve it, how do you see that impacting the operation of the transit center? >> it will be less we will not be able to get the full number of trains, it will work in the interim, i think, and it is going to be very restrictive for the cal train and difficult. you know, there are things that need to be worked out or we should not be concentrating on the reasons why not. but obviously, that last picture that you see assumes that we have the same kind of operating system. and we don't even have that, yet. and we have restricted areas

like an airport, for the high speed rail and free access to cal train. and on the proof of payment system and we are different. people who want high speed trains, have a different prescribed seat, now have you to do some policing for people who try to break the law. it is constricting, if you are trying to get six trains a hour, which they will really like, not just five, it is impossible on two, and on one platform to do that, we have not done the analysis yet and, we are working towards it. and i think that we will have some more results, and they will actually, and are there any other questions?

>> and the other presentations. >> i think that i have a question just to follow up, when you said that we could make it work, what does that mean? does it mean that we will have to kind of have movable stairs. we have not put in the stairs or escalators either. but the question about the share use of a platform, is someone has to negotiate the idea, that in fact, either we have restricted boarding for cal train as well as high speed rail, so we are all using the same system, or in fact, high speed rail that slip on and we have a restricting weight, but on this platform, you are going down when you are told to. and it is not restricted to holding of a ticket to get on that platform. and it is going to be in the architectal plumbing and we have enough elevators or

escalators to serve efrp, it is how that you get out in an emergency and that we have accepted the emergency exit and you will use the escalator as well. and so that is not the problem, the problem is just perception of how you get on and off of a train. >> and ada and so if the worse case scenario if we are not able to get compatible platform, what would we do for ada cases? >> i think that we will get there, if we don't, we are really restricting how many trains who gets in, and that will still be negotiating because it is a blended system for the future. the real crunch is in 20 years time and there is also another restriction, which is not part of my job to sort out, but there are four tunnels to get in here, and we only have two tracks and we can deal with so many trains and you want four tracks when you get down to the bay shore and you can make them

longer. but you can only get so many trains through, and the tunnels is another problem. and that is the biggest trains that don't fit through those. >> and so it is a a lot of negotiating that need to be done. >> thank you. >> and by the first presentation will be given by is it ben or is it dave, okay. >> cal train is doing the first. good morning directors i am dave couch and i am the director for cal train and i am going to do a multipart presentation and this will go through what we have on the status for the over all program and also address the issues with the level of boarding, and

by way of background, we have the existing system, that we have run as a diesel system that goes all the way from gill roy into downtown san francisco and the rider ship numbers that are here, 60,000 plus is something that we have just ellipsed and the ridership just keeps growing and growing and growing, and i kind of look at it as a victim of our own success. and that is what this shows on the next chart. when you look at what the growth has been since 2010, moving up it is phenomenal, the number of riders that we now have on board, on a daily basis. and so it is something that we extract as conditions continue to get more con jected on the streets that will continue to get more riders that we will want to make the runs on the commuter line. >> specifically if you look at what has happened and these numbers are from february of this year and one of the lower rider ship months and it shows the number of drains in both

drains in both directions in excess of 100 percent and the ones around here are 98 and 99 percent by the point that i am standing here right now, i am sure that those are at 100 percent or mow. so we have out grown what we have for a system right now, specifically for the cal train moderization program there are three components the first is the early investment program and in the early investment program, the first project is our (inaudible) program and that is something that is the communication based overlay and it is positive train control system that is currently being implemented and it is designed, basically to prevent the train to train coalition and it was put in the legislatively in 2008 and so this is something that we are working on and that it will be company pleated in 2015. in the second part of the practice is the electrickfiation program and

one is the electrickfiation and the second is the multiple units and i will go into both of those in details in a couple of minutes, and as a follow on to this comes the blended system that he was speaking to a few minutes ago, if you start to look at what the project description is, it is not the entire line from gill roy all the way into san francisco that will be electrified and it is the portion, basically from san jose, up to san francisco and it is a 51 mile project, and that we will go ahead and get the electrickfiation done and it runs all the way in and two tracks will be electrified and it will be an overhead contact system, and something that has been used on the east coast, and in europe, and but it is something that is going to be new to the west coast and so it is a different voltage and a different set up. and we will use the current path that we are on and that is the electrical multiple units and that is something that i

have learned in more detail in a couple of minutes, the service will initially operate at 79 miles an hour with a capability to go ahead and expand to 110 miles per hour. it decreases the air possession and increases the ability to carry more riders and it basically is all positives when you look at most projects you start to see things that are negatives in different direction and this is one that i am looking for the negative and everything that i see and that i have seen in the past six months sincevy been here is all positive specifically, the emus in april, excuse me, and brief them for the process and we issued a request for information, to the car building industry and to go ahead and find out what it was

that they had. we want to use something that has been an existing platform, that has been used in other parts of the world that can be adopt and that keeps you away from the challenges of something that is brand new and uses something that is proven vehicle. we had the industry come in and we had 11 different car builders that can be requested in this process and going through that, there were three of them that came in and they had the detailed discussions with us, and as a result of the other conversations our expectation, is that we will have between two and four proposers, and when we open that we take proposals some time next spring. >> what we also wanted to do, is paint the future for it, and so what it was that had been going on with cal train and

show what the current situation was in the future there will be a requirement to go to 100 percent six car vehicles and ultimately length them to 8 cars and to deal with the growth and the increase and so we wanted to be sure that we are painting the picture of the car builders because we want to be sure that they understand that this will be something over time that those vehicles will grow in length and will grow in capacity

>> they can apply with the requirements and we can deal with the fra requirements and so all of those regulatory pieces even with manufacturers, that currently are producing vehicles out of the country, they believe that they can comply with all of those, and will do the assembly in the u.s.. >> the floor threshold is the portion that we are going to have more detailed discussion today, what we heard from that industry, is that they are common threshold for a commuter vehicle is a bi level vehicle that has got a threshold in the 22 to 24 and the bi level vehicle by definition, will give you a higher capacity and as we move for of having that amount of capacity into the future to be able to deal with the rider ship and that is what we are targeting is the bi level, vehicle. and specifically, on the thresholds, it is an advantage to every agency to have exactly that same. and every place where you have

that, it gives you a quicker boarding and a safer boarding and commonality of resource and so it is basically a positive advantage to come to a conclusion that gets to that same point. and what we currently is no level boarding at any of our stations it takes longer on the side for the passengers to go ahead and load on and off of the vehicles, we have got 8 inches above type of rail and so we will have to increase that, and currently we have had that first step for our vehicles that is basically a ten inch step that then goes up into the vehicles. and whether it is a 45 inch floor height or a 25 and so there is a series of steps that go into the existing vehicles. and so, eliminating that and getting to a constant boarding height is something that will increase, that capacity, decrease the dwell time and to be able to have us carry more passengers. over the short term?

the path that swre been heading on, is to go ahead and use that existing 8 inch platform and as we go forward and trying to get a vehicle that will maximize the capacity, and going to the future. and targeting that off of the they feel vehicle with a floor height that is 22, and to 24 inches. and that will be operatable with the current fleet and that is one of the issues that we happen to go forward with the basis is how you transition to whatever that future boarding height is. and of the higher that boarding height, then the more difficult that transition becomes. and not impossible, but more difficult to deal with. and as we go to the long term, there are issues that we have to deal with in terms of existing requirements. and cpuc still has a rule on the books that you can't go above a platform that is 8 inches above top of rail and that is an old rule in the books from the man on the ladder on the side of a vehicle and it is something that we

need to work our way past and because what we have to do is to set the platforms back a distance and anything that is above that 8 inches, which then will put you at a point that you are in conflict with ada, the ada point is a 3 inch gap and any five 8th of an inch vertical, differential and that is one of the pieces that we have to deal with, regardless of what that ultimate warning height is resolution of that cpcu requirement. >> so as i said, it is that common desire, to go ahead and have that boarding height. and it is a matter of where that lines up. and you will hear from ben in a few minutes concerning a 50 inch platform height and we have looked and based upon what we have seen with the vehicles, has settled into that 25 inch height. but we are trying to work forward to see what we can do to reach that common goal. and when you look at the stations that are out there on cal train, there are 27 stations that we have. and there are several stations

that ultimately, have to have something worked through, and but the vast majority of the stations are dedicated purely for the cal train service, but we have to fight a reasonable solution. >> specifically, as we moved forward with the emus and we have gone now and we have started an out reach process to go ahead and find out from a public what it is that they desire on board each one of the emus and we are doing it in a two part process and the first piece is really the balance between what you have for the seats and what you have for the on board bath wraoms and what you have for bike and you have the higher utilization of the bikes any place in the country, we have 80, capacity for the bikes on the other there are 48 and there is a vast desire and input from the bike community to increase those numbers, but it is a balance point for every bike that you have board, it

absorbs the space that the individual be seated in plus, one space that you lose a seat as a result of having the bike on board, when you go to the bathrooms one of the current fleets has two bathrooms on board,