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. there was an openness to figure out into future and from any perspective it felt like there was procastination until we realized that agencies would be going out for vehicle procurement. we're actually hitting a crux at this point, where we have to make a decision on platform compatibilities. that we can't just have kind of

parallel conversations happening in terms of what is best for each agency? and then rfps go out and we realized that we have procured two different types of vehicles that doesn't allow for the greatest flexibility moving into the future. i'm not saying it's not possible for us to move down that pathway for us to have two different types of vehicles. and there are clearly ways to make that work in the three stations that we have identified that both high-speed rail and caltrain would be stopping at, millbrae and san josé and san francisco. but i think there is certainly a lot of different factors that will make this a more challenging system into the long-term, while more affordable in the short-term for both -- for at least caltrain. it seems like there would be additional costs for high-speed rail, if they were to build additional tracks in those two stations. so i think from our perspective, we're just realizing that we're getting to the point that we have to start the procurement process and we want to make sure we can open

the conversation, as much as we can to seeing what all of our options are. >> i appreciate that perspective. i just want to add to it that this -- the caltrain work isn't being done in a vacuum. this is not just a multi-county agency, which has all three counties as stakeholders. but it really is about high-speed rail in the bay area, and it's about all of the interconnectivity with all the different systems. it seems to me that decisions that are being made by caltrain need to always be made not just in full consultation, but taking into account all of the county and all of the systems. this stretch is more and more going to be an absolute back bohn bone in the bay area

transportation's system. it's not just one action's system, but a system that so much depends on. they are complicated issues to see these issues flare up at the 11th-hour as this one appears to have done and the fact that you have two agencies that were about to go out with rfps for incompatible vehicles, that actually happened and i just wanted to make that point. >> i understand completely. but i also want to assure you that we're working very collaboratively with high-speed rail. those meetings have been going in month in and month out to try to make sure that we identify anything that creates issues and whether it's dynamic outlines for vehicles, whether it's heights or whether it's the power requirements, all of these things are, in fact, ongoing. and will continue to be ongoing.

the compatibility is a different way of saying level-boarding. and there are many ways to achieve level-boarding. so if go back to the slides, those are the key considerations that we have to look at. you wind up with vehicle performance, that casey talked about earlier. the compatibility of the desire to go ahead and have the emus that have better acceleration. one of the things that we have to be careful of and it's an issue that was raised a few minutes ago concerning the continued use of the diesel fleet. if we do go it a 50" platform at that time, our current fleet becomes incompatible with that

because of the boarding height of the current diesel fleet. i mentioned about the tenant compatibility, where they have a much lower boarding height. the california public utilities commission and americans with disabilities act requirements all fit into this puzzle. and then what is that proper height? is it 50" or is it 25"? concerning the performance and capacity, what we're looking to do, it's a different performance level. we have looked at locomotives and emus with the single 50" and do not provide the same capacity on a car by car basis as bilevel emus. >> that means less people that can get on? >> less people that can get on one car. >> and bilevels having two sets of doors, so that is a better way for people to go

ahead and get on and off the vehicle. it's a quicker entrance and exit. and we're doing further analyses right now to go ahead and determine in conjunction with high-speed rail is from there compatibility to put doors in an emu at two different heights, one that would serve 25" platform and one that would serve a 50" platform? we're having conversations with the industry and met last week with one of the potential car builders. and they are looking now at what the potential is? and we're having more conversations with car builders to find out with hat can be done with vehicles that they currently manufacture? because we're looking for something that is a modification . it's a good cost difference when you looking at getting a brand-new vehicle that has

never been built before. concerning the diesel fleet compatibility. as i said, the 25" boarding height is something that is compatible. we could use our existing vehicles at that height. but once we take the first platform to 50", that eliminates the utilization of our existing fleet for that station. >> can i ask about that, just because i find that very confusing. >> okay. >> so i understand that freight trains are basically at 0" boarding, is that correct? >> the way that the california public utilities commission has it, is that the platform height, which is the distance of the concrete surface above the top of the track is 8". if you have that, you don't have to provide any further setback from the face of the current platform. as you start to increase the height of that platform then

you have to setback that platform at a minimum of 24-25", if you are under 48" in height and more than that if you are above that height. so it starts to counteract what the ada requirement is and the ada requirement is that the vehicle has to be within 3" of edge of platform. so you have two competing requirements. >> i understood the conflict between cpuc and ada. that was very clear to me. i guess what i am not as clear about is why, if you have to change the platform height to 25" anyway, you know, how are freight -- how are diesel and freight trains going to move through those stations when the platform is 25 minus 8? >> that is something -- >> versus 50. >> i understand. >> it seems to be the same challenge. >> when we were trying to do to plan for cal mod 2.

that would be the next step that would be in the 10-15-year timeframe. when the environmental process was completed, and when funding was identified. so what we're trying to do is identify an emu, because the lifecycle of an emu is 30 plus years. so we were looking for something that we could procure at this time, that would continue to serve the 8" platform heights, but that also would have the compatibilities to transition to a higher height at a point in future. when we had the conversations with the industry this past june, what they told us was if you go to a bilevel vehicle, which is where we maximize capacity on a car by car basis, that their common manufactured floor height, the boarding height is 25" above top of rail. what we're looking for and have been looking for a vehicle that has been made before. there is no such thing going down to the local ford dealer

and buying an emu, but you can buy something that has been made by a manufacturer. they will have to change certain components in order to comply with some of the u.s. regulations and in particular, some of things that may be crashworthiness for buy-america, but something that was a tried and true and proven vehicle that would allow us to go ahead and transition in the future, knowing that right now we don't have the ability or the funding to go ahead and go forward with what would be a next deir/eir process to be able to go and do the pieces that are there to raise the platforms to 25". so the concept was how do you plan for the future? so that you don't preclude that during the lifecycle of that vehicle, that will you will have something that is a higher platform that that series of vehicles