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 will go to an elected body system, and similar to bart, or not something that i have the specific feedback about, and that i am interested, in that conversation, about what leadership, and what the organization is going to look like for a cal train moving forward and this is really informative and this is super helpful for me and i know that the board of supervisor ss interested in this and i will be calling for a hearing at the land use committee as well. and that finishes my comments, i didn't know if director reiskin? >> just a couple of quick

points, i think line under the surface, and i think that director lee made some reference to it and maybe something that we can bring forward at the next meeting here. and maybe in like the planning department, and is what is the long term and what is the 50 year vision for the 4th and king? what is the ultimate disposition and because i think that director lee was correct, that we will be as part of this process there will be trade offs and compromise and seems like one compromise of keeping the dedicated platforms will kind of lock in the need for permanent fourth and king facility, where i think that dtx envisions a fourth and townsend underground station which i think that there are difference of opinion on what the long term disposition of fourth and king is. and but the decisions that we are making here, and what assumptions people have of what it looks like 50 years from

now, and it will be impacted by the decisions that we are making here and so that was just one point and the second point, and i appreciate you raising that, and i do think that we have to remember that where these two or these three systems come together and we have cal train building out, and upgrading 50 of the 75 miles, and we have high speed rail building a few hundred miles and then we have the djpa building the last mile and at some point i think that we have to decide, is that governance of these different bodies building on the same right-of-way, and even make sense? and it does not make sense for cal train to be building this part and pjpa in a different entity is building in this last little piece. i think that there is a larger conversations that as a region and a state we should probably have and the most immediate is i think is in the next 60 days

is figuring out how to not lock ourselves out of the 50 and 100 year feature that we want. >> thank you. >> so, thank you directors, and just a point of clarification in terms of your interest, to bring back a resolution at the november november board meeting, on and but that would also include width and i think that is something that i think on lee brought up and we are happy to bring that and from our perspective there is common width and we defer and to the two operators to tell us what that should be for all of the reasons stated by lee and so we will bring that at the meeting.. >> we do have public comment on this item. >> i know that director reiskin has another obligation and so we will take the public comment and i will make a motion to continue this to next month, so we can continue this hearing item. so you have rolan followed by ademleven. >> thank you.

>> thank you, chair, kim. i think that what just happened is unfortunate, there were three presentations with conflicting information and some of it was inaccurate and (inaudible) presentation and one word and that is amen. but if it offer as a recommendation, maybe, for next month, i would like to touch on two things, it is a 25 to 50 inches and then talk about the capacity, and cal train currently has got two kinds of rolling stocks, one is 25 inch and the other one is 50 inch and if i am aware the 50 inch is the one to climb the stairs and the issue with the 50 inch is that there is not sufficient head room for (inaudible) and so you can have a 50 inch by

the roll, training inch pan and it is not a problem, because everybody has their own, and you are not going to have in the train (inaudible). cut to the ceiling so that the people can stand and upstairs you are going on the seats and so you are losing the capacity there and it just does not work, and it works if you don't have (inaudible), okay? and so that is the end of the discussion. and so the option that you have is you can forget about the bilevels and the 50 inch everywhere and just one level and then what happens to the entire system is that you double the length of all of the platforms. and so in closing, that is the end of that discussion. of capacity, and you will not be able to get 100,000 passengers with six trains and in the long term we have 8 cal

trains and three high speed trains. (inaudible) and so you need to go and revisit that and the high speed plan is to take over (inaudible) i really don't know, my closing remark is my recommendation to you is, right now, the ta, and the mayor's office, are working with world class experts, and they are the people that designed the terminals and the platforms, and that managed to get 12 now in and out of there, and in the street platform and my recommendation to you is reach out to these people and if possible, ask them, to come here, next month. and really, tell you how this is supposed to work, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good morning, board members, friends with cal train, and we are really glad to see, cal

train and high speed working with this over time and we are glad to see the intent to have a report on the long term impact on the capacity, and the long term impact on operations. and the long term impact on key stations, and it would be helpful to look at in addition to transbay, at milbray and giradon as well and that capacity of several have mentioned is going to be critically important cal train rider ship forecast is to merely less than double by 2040, but san francisco forecast is that rider ship to san francisco is expected to go up 3 x. and in san jose, they are predicting 5 x with a lot of transit oriented development, and downtown. and that capacity, we are going to need it. and so being able to get the

maximum into the transbay is going to be critical. and having solution that works operationally for cal train, and the service. and in terms of a service pattern, and in terms of cost, is important because that is our economy. and that is our environment and if there is something that is problem matter in terms of operational costs, we are going to be paying for it as institutions and as taxpayers, and so that is going to be a critical element as well. and another critical element that the board has already mentioned. is about the importance of being able to send all of the cal train trains into the transbay, and the, and there are three times as many jobs around transbay as the rest of the line combined. and the transit oriented development is going to if anything, grow that, and that will have the connection to bart, and to muni and to the rest of the regional transit system and so all trains into the transbay and maximize that service, for