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 couldn't be served by? >> so you kind of brought up a number of different concepts there is system a customization issue, but you are saying at least that type of train has been built before? >> there is one set that i know of that is used on the

east coast. it is not something that is common, that is available, and that is another thing that we're trying to make sure that we don't wind up with only one manufacturer, that with provide the vehicle. >> right. there is still a level of customization required even at 25", because i know that is one of the issues that caltrain had with going to 50", the costs that there are not as many companies that build. that is one issue. the second issue, i still don't understand why if you are going to buy 25", are you going to leave the platforms as-is, until the eir is done? >> we would leave the -- the current eir does not contain anything for raising the platforms. >> right, so if we get the 25" platform trains, the stations would all stay the same. how would passengers board 25" trains? >> a set of steps. >> what would make going to 50

more challenging in that scenario? >> what it does, it is not so much the initial train set. it is what do you do in the transition? because it's a 10-15-year program to go ahead and get to the 50" height. immediately upon having the new 50" height vehicle or first platform, i should say, that is when you lose the ability to operate the existing diesel fleet. that is one of the complicating pieces. that is what we're talking to the vehicle manufacturers right now. what is that they can do? >> why is it easier with the 25"? you still have that constriction as well. >> the 25" is basically the level for a bilevel vehicle. >> i understand that. so my question is, i'm not asking about why the vehicles are the way they are.

but i'm wondering what is the challenge for getting 50" trains leaving the platforms as they currently are versus going to 25"? so you are leaving all the stations exactly the same? >> if you are leaving them the same, there is no difference. when you start to make the transition to the higher platforms that is what makes the difference. >> what is the difference from going to 25" to 50"? if you said 25" boarding platform trains you will just have a set of stairs in the meantime and use both the diesel and they will expire and you buy more trains over time. if you go to 50", what is preventing you from doing the same thing? >> there is nothing. >> so using a higher set of steps. >> there is nothing that is preventing you from do tong the vehicle side. what is preventing from doing is from the platform side. >> that is my question. what is the difference on the platform side between doing 25" and 50"? >> utilization of the existing

fleet. >> i'm not sure if i'm asking the question. >> i apologize. >> i understand that the original proposal for caltrain, that you want to mix in the current fleet along with 25" and keep the stations the same and provide a set of the steps for when the 25" trains roll in, correct? >> yes. >> let's say you went with the 50" and you kept some of the diesel trains, but now have steps that go to 50 inches? >> correct. >> is that possible? >> yes. >> so the challenge, it seems to me -- from a layman's perspective, because i'm not an engineer. >> one second, she is still talking. >> if we get a 25" emu vehicle, it's almost identical in the floor height to one that we have today, which is just one step to get into it. and so both our diesel system

and future one would be able to serve our platforms. if we raised the platforms to level boarding you would raise the step and have emu. if we get a train that is being talked about that would have a couple different door heights, ones built at 25", because that is where people board from no matter what. you can't jump from a 50" door to where we are today. we would have to have double sets of doors at a low level and high-level. so that is the customization that would be different than the emu today. that is where we would have to look at trade-off maybe to have an internal lift, when you make the adjustment later on. so the difference is that we would have to be adding extra doors then to do that 50. you can't get a vehicle today that is just 50" and serve the platform today. or if you did, it would have to have -- i don't know -- but that would have a huge stairs

that would be is very, very steep. so we're looking at the different car builders to figure out what we can do today. >> answer to the question comes to the platform transition. >> okay. the third question that i have and i think my colleaguess have questions as well. the question of the capacity. so i understand that caltrain wants to go to bilevel and sorry i'm asking so many questions, i'm trying to understand from an engineering perspectives a layperson, what the factors are in the decision? so at you have looked at the seat differential? >> yes. you basically wind up with five seats across and single level. and it's a two plus two and

bilevel. i don't have the data with me, but on a vehicle on a car-by-car basis it's higher for a bilevel vehicle than it is for a single-level vehicle. >> how much higher? >> i don't have those. i want to say it's somewhere in the 15-20% difference. >> thank you. >> so a couple of things. first of all, i want to understand is the 25" still on the table? is it still possible that caltrain will go ahead with 25" even though high-speed rail is going to have a distinct different level? >> right now, the first process that we went through during the month of november was to find out if there are any fatal flows and there are no fatal flaws going from 25".

we're still looking as we go through that process, and listening to the car builders about the 25" height. there will be a policy decision that the jpb will be doing based on recommendations from that study. >> i understand that jpb will be making those recommendations and is staff recommending 25"? >> what staff was committed to and this was jumping ahead to our last slide, we're going do a trade-off analysis, because what does it mean to have a car that looks like this? or the flexibility that you get with a platform that looks differently? we're committed to come back to all of our funding partners and meeting with that mou group every single month, back to our board and back to any body that is interested in learning more. on the slideshows the timeframe

of what we're doing now. we're doing the technical analysis of what the trains look like and what should be the trade-off that we look at? to come back with a trade-off assessment, so everybody understands what we could be asking for and what that means for the system? and then to have a policy decision in the may -- march to may timeframe. we're fully aware that all three counties are going to weigh in on this. as part of our procession of always letting people know what we're doing we meet every single month with elected officials from the 17 officials. we're going to continue to go back to our staff level groups and funding groups and this seems is a very good committee to stay in the loop, so everybody is informed at the end of the day and this is just starting point to layout what that analysis is. >> thank you for that. in terms of another point that had you raised is that as soon as you go to 50 inch, the

current diesel vehicles have to then all go out of service, other than the gilroy stretch. >> correct. >> and the reason for that is that you can imagine that a door at 25" and if you have a platform that is much higher, you can't walk up to get to the platform. if it's the other way, where the platform is lower and the door is higher, you can have steps. >> i understand. as i mentioned at the beginning, i know there are definitely challenges around having compatible vehicles, but ultimately we're talking about whatever 100-year investment or whatever it is, and i wouldn't want the tail to wag the dog in terms of saying well these current soon to be obsolete vehicles aren't going to work under the system and therefore, we need a permanently incompatible system. so i do acknowledge that is certainly a logistical challenge. in terms of capacity, what is

caltrain considering in terms of increasing capacity? assuming that the agency goes with the 50" and there is some seat losses. where can you make up part or all of that? >> there are two pieces to that. the first is the first policy decision will be in a balance of what are seats, what are bathrooms and what are bikes on boards to determine the ultimate capacity? on part we have a bathroom on each car and on part we have two, one at each end. we currently have 80 bikes on one part of our fleet and 48 on another. so that is another policy decision that goes back to jpb, whether they want to maintain those and at what level? those will determine what number of seats are. there this is intended to be a 75%

replacement, not a 100% replacement that. . that is why the diesel piece is still there. we're having conversations with high-speed rail, if we wind up with a 50" platform, that would provide the potential for them to provide additional funding to go to 100% 6-car trains. that will then get us so we have the capability of running 100% 6-car trains for the length of the alignment, six trains per hour per direction. the next capacity bump that you get beyond that is when you go to an 8-car train. an 8-car train will require not only the addition of cars, but also requires the lengthening of platforms and depending upon what we decided on the height of the platform, also the heightening of those platforms. >> in terms of the restrooms, right now every car has one or even two restrooms on it?

>> that is what we're looking at now is we put a survey out there to our customers that closed on the 17th of october. we're compiling the results of that survey right now to go ahead and come back to the board with a presentation/information-only, in january, that will provide the results of that survey. to go ahead and see which of our customers preferred having one, two or six bathrooms on board and that will turn into a policy decision by the board in terms of how many we will have on board. >> it's an interesting thing, because so caltrain to take it from one end to the other, it's a little over -- i guess it depends on which train you are riding -- generally most people on the train for an hour or less. it's pretty common on bart to be on for -- people can be on for a prettysignificant period of time and, in fact if you are out at the beach in san

francisco you might be on muni for all too close to an hour. none of those vehicles have zero bathrooms on any vehicle in the bart and muni systems. so when you are talking about long-haul train clearly you have to have restrooms for people. i'm glad that that is being considered. >> there is a relationship that is there to the number of seats that is absorbed by a restroom and it's 8 seats and it's the same thing as to any individual who brings a bike on board, that is equivalent to two seats, one for the bike and one for them. those are the balance pieces that we'll bring back to the board. >> is it possible that staff will recommend removing bike capacity on the train? >> i do not know what that recommendation will be. i do not expect it will be removing bikes, but we have not finished the analysis of the survey right now. >> it's really -- sorry.

>> go ahead. >> it will be the survey coupled with technical analysis. that was a feedback method for to us reach out to the customers and we had a good turnout. >> i hope that the recommendation isn't to remove bike capacity. i think we need to be moving in that direction and making it easy for people to be multi-modal in a non-auto way and combination of the last-mile problem is a big one. so great. thank you. >> those are some of the pieces that we tried to acquire in the survey in terms of alternate ways or how close people were from their home or work to be able to get to caltrain? so we're looking at those pieces. >> thank you. >> to jump to the next steps. as i said, we're