can't get the elevators down. so my plea is the benefit of this is that we have probably a 10-year phrase before we put extra trains parsing tracks down the peninsula, with only two high-speed rail trains. two high-speed rail trains don't need more than one platform per hour. so you can get a lot more caltrain trains here. so the flexibility of how you do it over time, because then they go to 4 trains. you still don't need four platforms for four trains. so we should be able to share this thing. it has an advantage for start-up, because any train can get into any platform, so we can store trains here overnight to get started in the morning. it becomes more efficient. it gets us higher caltrain capacity, which for the initial phrase is what we're looking. it's flexible to bring the different phrases of high-speed rail in. and one other benefit it

doesn't need the special curved crossovers, because once a caltrain train breaks down in the original system, there is nowhere else to go. you can't get back out, if that approach fails. it's what is known as a single-point of failure. that is the plea i have been making for years and now i'm pleased to say that everybody is meeting together and have been for the last two, three months to genuinely look at solving this problem and coming up with same-height and also the same width. because it's very important not to lose that. the width affects the gap between the train and the platform. if you have two different widths, someone is going to have a big gap. so i will hand this over for the next presentation to lisa. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. dykes. >> i believe that we have forwarded the powerpoint presentation to both members. let me know if you have gotten it. >> we actually added a few more slides to the end of this and we're happy to share it to you and i have saved it to this laptop. >> if you could send that to us, that would be great. >> thank you for having me. my name is lisa fisher an urban planning at aecom in the urban planning group. hopefully this presentation will be helpful and inspiring and also welcome this to be a start of a larger dialogue, if you need our assistance moving ahead with other examples. we have the benefit of working around the world and pretty much every discipline that has to do with the built environment. and what we have done today is

compiled some lessons learned and some visual examples from mainly projects in europe, with one japanese example. i think the main thing that we would like to show in these images is -- sorry, is that better? okay. the main topics of accessibility, flexibility, capacity and efficiency, that come from these sorts of blended stations. of course, the lower costs that are associated with that. then i think we'll end today just with a quick example from london about the land use and planning kind of spinoff that can happen from having a more compressed footprint when you think about not only the enhanced real estate opportunities, but the urban regeneration possibility and even the walkability and distance for people getting to the train is greatly enhanced when the station itself has a smaller footprint. all of these things kind of having a way to capitalize on

these sorts of investments. other reason that i would ask to come here today, we recently organized a day and a half workshop with the british consulate and cambridge university at our office and brought together global experts about rail innovation. so we have great connections and there is actually going to be a book published about some of these findings, if you are interested in any other points. quickly, some images. waterloo is one of the stations that is being connected to the tunnel through high-speed one. so here you can see the blended configuration. in spain and also in madrid and other places their tracks have other scales coming in at the platform heights. and in germany, and in berlin, this picture is from 2006. this is blending actually three

different train lines, the high-speed rail, the s ban and regional train. two photos from japan showing the more regional trains and the high-speed rail in the middle. these last two examples are showing how these footprints can lead to these amazing also architecture footprints both in london and in belgium. quickly, for high-speed rail, this is a little bit about king's cross; which if you are not familiar is with the london station in the upper corner linking to the tunnel. and also high-speed one is responsible for reaching out to the kent existing rail. all of these stations are experiencing some level of

urban regeneration. the presentation that we had at our workshop was really focused on king's cross and strafford, where the london olympics occurred. so just quickly, here at king's cross, a photo from 1894 and you see the footprint that this sort of station took up in a very central part of london. in 2007, still a large amount of kind of open, underutilized space. and this is basically the approach that they took, looking at the development parcels that could become available within the station footprint as they uprr upgrade the facilities. today this is the master plan, about 8 million square feet of mixed-use development, including 2,000 residential units. maintaining historic structure and google is one of their main anchor tenants. 40% of the site is public realm, which is 27 acres.

and here we're showing how it kind of revitalizing the long stretch of canal side development. these are some great photos today looking north, that basically downtown london and the river is to your back. and then how it's envisioned with this amount of development coming in. and then again, looking south, you can start to see the financial district, et cetera, and then in the future this is the potential. so i'm not going to run through the olympic example, but i'm happy to share those with you. but this slide was provided to us by the london authority. and gave some kind of quick numbers to the regeneration potential from these high-speed one investments. stafford city with the olympics and king's cross that we just looked at. a total of over 22 million square feet of development. 63,000 plus jobs. almost 8,000 housing units. >> i have a question. what

type of housing unit are we talking about market rate housing, below market rate, subsidized? >> it's a mix. i'm happy to get the exact breakdown, but they have very similar to san francisco looking at affordable housing issues. >> this part of london where this build-out took place, is it -- was it in the industrial part? was it in an abandoned part of the city? or was it already an economic hub? >> king's cross was an existing station and it was already part of the metroline and more developed part of london. where the olympics took place is the largest urban brownfield redevelopment project in europe in recent history. so that was a very industrial, very polluted, very low-income neighborhood. the legacy actually aecom designed the plan for the olympics and the master plan

and i'm happy to provide that as well. >> so now that the olympicks have come and gone, how is the site used today? >> so the legacy plan needed to be developed actually as part of the competition for london to win the site. so it's already transforming into a mixed-use everyday primary community. so everybody was built with that in mind. that was actually a more important part of the project. and we actually had a complete sustainable framework that went with that redevelopment also, that looked at the social and environmental kind of benefits of the development in the legacy, not in the olympic part. >> thank you. >> and this last slide, this just shows high-speed 2 is kind of the next part of this is that is going to be spinning off to the different stations. the rail agency is working very closely with all of the local authorities about how to maximize the benefits of each

of these. thank you. >> through the chair, i wanted to ask a question of you as well. when you presented all the previous slides, which i had looked lou through last night, you are pointing out stations where there is platform compatibility. so they are all at level platforms. >> yes, and i wanted to show you examples of existing or stations that are retrofitted, as opposed to the ones that were built with that in mind from the beginning. >> i'm sorry, examples of what? >> the two stations in belgium and lisbon were built with the level platforms from the beginning and knew where high-speed rail would be part of it from the beginning. >> so in terms of vehicle procurement for some of the regional trains. was it an issue to find companies that were able to produce the higher-platform regional trains as well? >> i would have to actually get back to you about that

specific question. >> all right. thank you. >> i'm happy to find out more. that would be great. thank you. >> thank you. my name is casey and i'm co-presenting with dave, our delivery director for the program. this is a little bit of background on the system -- i know you are well-versed in it, but for folks that are watching. the caltrain system runs from san francisco all the way down to san josé. it covers 77 miles, 32 stations and right now there is a visual image of what our ridership looks like on a week day. the peak hour we're serving many customers and we just broke the 60,000-riders on an average week day. in the future we project that to almost double and be over 100,000 by 2040. we also have a robust bikes on board program. our trains are holding up to 80 bikes per train and sometime those bikes are not even

allowed to get on because we're already at capacity. so we are something that is called bike bumps that shows the number of bikes that we have today and just another picture of the capacity needs on our system. the caltrain modernization program is really made up of two key programs. the first one is advance signal system, called c boss ptc. >> casey, do you have slides? >> it's all-in-one powerpoint presentation. the next project is peninsula

electrification project. the cboss ptc project has two requirements one is a federal requirement, a safety feature assuring that trains won't be running into each other and making sure it minimizes any accident and derailments. second part really improves caltrain performance. trains are able to run closer together and we're able to get through throughput and capacity. this highlights some of the key milestones we're preparing for the testing and we have been doing the installation for the last year and we're on-track to meet the 2015 deadline. the electrification project, we hit a huge milestone last thursday and released the final eir for this project. this project includes

electrification from caltrain to san josé. we're not electrifying south of that, because that is owned by union pacific. our project hits 17 cities in this, san francisco to san josé area. and it really includes two key elements for this. electrification for the overhead systems and the electric vehicle. we'll have a service that includes up to 79 miles per hour and then the bullets under that are really the key parts. it's because the performance that get with the emus that we're able to stop and start faster than what we do today that. means in about the same amount of time that we have our trains running from one end to the other, we can almost double the number of stops. we can also do a shorter timeframe for those folks that we definitely have people just

trying to commute from one side to the other. >> casey, just for the folks that are listening, can you define what an "emu" is? >> it's an electric multiple unit, right now our system is at diesel system that pulls the train. so it's not able to have the same acceleration and deacceleration that we would get with emus in this type of vehicle. >> thank you >> you are welcome. with this project we'll have a mixed service fleet where we'll continue to run diesel trains and run diesel trains down to gilroy and continue to serve those customers. we have ace capitol corridor and amtrak customers. for mile stones, as i said, big one for electrification.

we have 35% design and the federal environmental clearance. 2012 is the regional funding plan with the nine party to support and put forward funds. we have a contracting method selected. which is design-build. and in 2014, we have the owners team in place and requests for qualifications along with requests for information. we're updating our funding plan and last month we had a schedule and cost to the program and we're planning to issue rfps in 2015 for the vehicle and design-build portion of it. >> quick question. where will the diesel trains be running? >> so eventually in the future we'll need to have the diesel trains as a bridge between the san josé general area and gilroy, because we're not electrifying that section of the tracks. >> so they are redirected or reroute down in the south part? >> we don't have a defined

service area in place, because we need the infrastructure and vehicles and talk to the communities about what the scheduling would be. when we have an interim period of mixed-use, we'll have diesel trains that run our entire line. when we are fully electrified between san francisco and san josé, that will be electric vehicle and that southern portion is where diesel vehicles will continue to run. >> so in the meantime, what happens? >> so with this project, we will get as much electric vehicle as we can. and also have some diesel vehicles >> okay. >> and the plan is once we have secured the funding in place and maximized the usefulness of the vehicles that we have out there, we'll have a fully electfied system. so electric vehicle in that portion between san francisco and san josé. >> will the emus be used for baby bullets as well? >> yes, that gets to the scheduling issue that we'll need to work with the communities on. because we haven't decided if

we'll do that quick schedule and get to one end to the other as quickly as possible or do more local stop because there are communities that want as much service as possible. we'll have to work on the right balance, but to work on more flexibility than we have today. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. the procurement status. we have a method approved, design-build and rfq process and we have six teams qualified, which i understand is a very good number for us to have competitive bids. on the vehicle side, we met with the car builders through a request for information process. when we talked to them about our system needs and what we're looking for capacity and service and the whole system that we really do touch, they have suggested that bilevel vehicles will maximize capacity on our system. they also said the most common floor height was 25", which is the low one, and that is just

the most common one that was out there. for the performance ones the emu was really the superior type that was out there. and then this is my last slide before i hand it over to dave this. is just to show that we are really thinking about the future this. is an incremental investment what is needed to mid-atlantic sure date -- make sure our entire region with the capacity. so state of good repair. this is always an issue for transit operators and we continue to struggle to have enough funds. for the cal mod program that we have the nine-party funding group, putting funds forward for cboss and electrification and other important projects for the region. having longer trains and longer platforms in the future is

something that we want to do to maximize the capacity in our system. when we are sharing our limited system with high-speed rail we need to make sure that our trains have the capacity and not just widening the corridor, sending more down there. so we know those are important issues and we're starting this process now through that process we're beginning now. it's a cake layer. and this foundation you can build on for the other elements. >> i'm not sure if this is best to you or mr. couch, but you mentioned that the bilevel maximizes capacity. so my understanding is also that trains that have 50" platforms have a wider body and that also increases the number of seats on board, too. and have you looked at a comparison in terms of

additional seats for narrower trains versus bilevel trains? >> i think dave will touch on that in his presentation. for all of them, it's the scale of what is readily available and what you customize and what fits with the system? so he will go into some of the details, but i think it's really getting back to the analysis. for all of these questions that people have after come back after our due diligence to show which makes the most sense in terms of capacity for systemwide issues. >> thank you, >> you are work. >> welcome. >> good afternoon. as we started to go through our analysis -- [ inaudible ]

i apologize. i wanted to start with what we currently have in service. it's basically a diesel push/pull fleet with coaches. we have two different models of coaches. and there is the bilevel and gallery cars, the bombs and also the gallery. they board off an 8" above top of rail platform and depending upon which vehicle it is, it has a different number of steps to take you to the main floor level. when you look at what that translates to in terms of access for ada compliance, we have several different methodologies that we use. something is what we call mini highs, which are basically fixed ramps that are at some of the stations. that anyone in a wheelchair that needs to board that way goes up the ramp to the higher level and helped by the conductor to go ahead and bridge the gap and get on to the train. the second one shows an on-board lift in part of our

fleet. and then the third one, the picture at the bottom, is basically a shot that shows what we have for backup lift capacity, which is a manual list at the station platforms. in case we have a failure of the other devices. one of the things that casey talked about is the different tenants that we have on the railroad and each one of those different tenants has a different type of equipment that is utilized with different boarding height above top of rail. we have ace that utilized two stations and capitol corridor using two and am track with one station at the southern end of the alignment and we have to make sure it also accommodates what the issues are in the continued utilization of those stations by our tenant railroads. one of the complicating pieces that are there is the fact that

we also have freight runing in the corridor. this is something that union pacific runs mainly on the southern end of corridor. they have limited service that comes up to the port in san francisco, but it complicates things because within that parameter, in the runs that they make, there are also requirements that are there by ctuc that requires a certain distance between the center line of track and the edge of the platform. once you go above a 6" above top of rail platform, then the setback that you wind up with leads basically to 2' gap between the edge of vehicle and what the edge of platform is. so it's one of those complicating pieces that we're also working through in our analysis. in terms of the cpuc issue, is cal train pursuing? >> what we're looking for first is what is that feasible solution? once we get to the point that

we can come to agreement on what that solution is, whether it is a 25" high platform or whether it's 48"? that will be next step is to go ahead and approach cpuc. this is one of their regulations right now. it's i believe 26d. and we'll have to get that amended, because right now they still have the provision there that i call "the old man on the ladder rule" for the freight trains and that is the reason why you have to have that setback, once you above 8" above top of rail. so we're looking for one-stop to go ahead and get that changed. >> how long is that process? >> i really don't know what that timeline will be. i know that that is something that as we go through the process, once we get to the point of having agreement on what the platforms will be, then there will be an environmental process that has to go on, that the program did

not clear anything for changes to platform. so there will be a process that i believe high-speed rail would undertake; that would be a several-year process to go ahead and get the approval and feir to go ahead and make the changes to the platforms. because that is not something that has been addressed or funded within the current program. so my hope or expectation would be that during that period, that issue could be addressed. cpuc as with other regulatory agencies would participate in that eir process. and would provide comments and that would be in my timeframe, my belief when that issue could be resolved. >> thank you. >> we're familiar with the acronyms, but if you could decipher some of those on the slides. uprr. what else is on the slide?

>> hsr is high-speed rail. >> is that the only one? >> california public utilities commission is cpuc and americans with disabilities act, ada. >> a follow-up why the compatibility discussion is happening right now? >> why is the no, it happening now? >> why it's only happening now? >> the conversation as i understand it until about four or five months ago was to have the differential heights and that is what mr. dykes showed in the previous presentation as the plan put forward by the

design of the new downtown transit center; which did show in the illustration that he had, that there were two dedicated platform phases. that were at a different height than what the four were for california high-speed rail. so that has been the initiation of the conversation over probably the last four or five months. there have been different discussions at other locations along the caltrain right-of-way. where the plan that high-speed rail initially had that i understand was down at diridon in san josé, so there would not by a platform compatibility problem. at millbrae, several plans -- one was to put at least one of

the tracks for caltrain on underground so they could go ahead and have those different platforms at the millbrae station. there was discussion for redwood city as a potential for a fourth stop, but probably four, five months since the june-july timeframe this has come to the surface and has been triggered by what has been the requirements for the new downtown transit center. >> thank you. i would like to follow-up on that. it seems like a pretty fundamental issue in terms of compatibility and we have known for some time that it was going to be a blended system. i can't remember what year it was. it was a while ago that that explosion happened, with the blended system. so that just strikes me as a pretty fundamental issue, making sure that you have compatibility, since we have two different

systems that are going to be using these tracks. and so, i think one of the concerns that has been expressed in san francisco at least around this issue is why this wasn't really brought up and vetted earlier? four, five months, that is great, but i think this conversation should have been happening some time ago. it's not surprising that with one blended system you would have want to have compatibility. >> i can just add to that, least in terms of how it got highlighted to the transbay joint powers authority, there was never a commitment actually to have dual-level boarding platforms. it was open-ended what the platforms would look like at transbay terminal and there was never a commitment to 50" and 25". so i don't want that to be out here that tjpa committed to.