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 going through the process in december, looking at criteria. we'll be going through in the

january-february what the trade-offs are to the different alternatives, be it 25 or 50? and then it will come back for policy decisions in the march through may timeframe. there will not be an rfp issued by caltrain to buy vehicles until it reaches a conclusion of those policy decisions. i'd be glad to answer any questions >> supervisor kim. >> thank you for all your work and thank you for answering a lot of technical questions that i didn't understand around platform compatibility. i did really appreciate that all of the agencies are working together to figure out how we can get to a place that is in the long-term, i think financially efficient, but also for all of our agencies combined. but also for our capacity issues as well. i do want to say that i completely understand the situation that caltrain is in. i know that moving -- if we

were to move into a 50" platform vehicle procurement, i know that does raise a lot of costs for caltrain on the front-end. and we as a regional body in state really need to figure out how to meet that gap in terms of the station changes. but also in the sense that you may have to procure a whole fleet at once, which may lower the cost per vehicle, but it's obviously a cost you don't have sitting in your budget right now. so i really want to appreciate that despite the fiscal challenges that we're at least exploring what this potentially looks like. i think it's certainly upon the region and high-speed rail to figure out how to come in and support this option, because it's certainly will lower costs for high-speed rail in the long-term as well. so if we're going to raise the costs upfront, but lower costs into the future, i think we really need to figure out how to

support your agency as a whole, to make sure that we can do this, if this is the pathway that we move down through. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> you are welcome. >> now high-speed rail authority. >> thank you, mr. chair, members. for the opportunity to be with you today. my name is ben, the northern california regional director formality california high-speed rail authority. before i begin in response to supervisor wiener's comment about why now? how did we come to the discussion about level-boarding now? as you are well aware, all mega projects are evolutionary in nature and at the core of our discussion is the requirement, really, not to proclude future high-speed rail service in the peninsula corridor to, ensure that all of the improvements that we're patterning with caltrain to complete w the electrification and all of those components don't preclude future high-speed rail in the corridor.

as we get into the analysis of the electrification process and development for follow on blended service, we saw potential elements for precluding future service as a result of not having common level-boarding. that is really what drove us to look at it far more vigorously as we are now, and that is why we're confident that we'll land on a solution that resolves the issue and allows us to land on a common, level-boarding platform and maximize the level of integrates service we can have in the corridor. the follow-on elements of blended service in the corridor we touched -- dave touched briefly on the fact that we'll be coming forward with our follow-on environmental review for future high-speed rail service. to ensure that we are operating in truly an integrated configuration, some of the follow-on analysis that we'll be completing will include a

full environmental review of stations, passing tracks, grade separations, maintenance facilities, and all of the support elements in order to accommodate a system that will allow us to operate high-speed rail and caltrain trains at 110 miles per hour in the corridor, providing us the capacity to run up to 12 commuter trains per hour, per direction and up to 8 high-speed rail trains per hour per direction -- excuse me. in total -- i'm sorry -- i always say it the other way. 6 caltrain trains per hour, per direction and 12 high-speed rail trains per hour, perdirection. and in soliciting the industry, we released a request for expressions of interest to

receive from firms that are interested in the design, building of the high-speed rail to use on the statewide system. the order will include a base order and options of up to 95 train sets. we're look at procuring a single-level train and it's important to note that in order for an international standard to operate at greater than 220 miles per hour, which is a requirement for our system, we need a single-level electric multiple unit as opposed to the bilevels units that will couch talked about. because all of the motorized equipment necessary to operate at 225 miles per hour all has to be under the floor. so we're left with a single-level emu, that has a 3-2 seating configuration, much like airplane seating and unlike caltrain need to have a proven

technology that as been in service elsewhere around the world that we can pursue. the width is going to be roughly a little wider than the caltrain current considerations roughly between 10.5 and 11.2'. and the vehicle height again is aimed at in order to operate over 220 miles per hour, at roughly between 46-51". some technical requirements we're looking at 450 passenger seats per vehicle and as is the case with caltrain, complying with all rules and laws with the system and look at developing maintenance systems along the corridor, in order to support the bay area system. there will be a heavy maintenance facility for the statewide system in the central valley. but we'll also need a smaller facility here in the bay area

to manage the trains along the peninsula corridor. >> i have a question going back to terminology. can you go back one more slide? >> sure. >> it says in the blue bullet a minimum of 450 passenger seats and first-class space equivalent of 1067 millimeters, is that what it is? >> yes. >> of pitch, what is "pitch?" >> essentially the space for seating. >> thank you. >> so the expressions of interest have been received. the deadline was late last month. we received responses from ten manufacturers. the expressions of interest will continue to be received after the final. this doesn't really begin the procurement process, but just an opportunity to begin the conversation with the industry and get an idea of what kinds of vehicles are possible for

use for the statewide system? we expect to issue a request for procurement sometime next year. and the firms that have submitted their expresses of interests will be given credentials to begin that question and answer participation process. just finally, dave alluded to the fact that we have begun to talk to the industry about possible vehicles to use at a common level boarding platform. this is a very basic design that we're presenting to the industry and utilizing. it's, in fact, a swiss manufacturer stadler has a vehicle akin to this. you envision the two sets of doors that you see there, potentially one at 48 -- 50" and the other at 25", having dual-boarding on a vehicle like, this which is bilevel. and can provide manufacture of the capacity that caltrain requires in order to maximize

their vehicle capacity. in the dual-boarding configuration and because of the opportunity to have dual-doors, it provides that transitional opportunity as supervisor kim you had asked the question about how you evolve from 25 to 50? at a single-level electric multiple unit you don't have stairs from 50 inches. whereas at 25" you have stairs to get up inside the vehicle. there is no vehicle that provides a drop of stairs on the vehicle side that. is the difference that you really don't have that vehicle side option. you have to provide that improvement on the platform side. whereas with 25 inch, caltrain could continue to use the existing platforms that they have today in much the same way that you board a gallery car today. you would get on the 25" emu. we don't have that same option at 50", which is really what creates the disconnect. >> i see that. was what i didn't understand. i thought we had to provide

external stairs either way, but you are saying with the 25", they are internal stairs inside the vehicle, similar to what we see in caltrain vehicle now's? now. >> right >> i assumed external stairs with the 25". >> you were correct. >> it is an internal staircase. >> yes. >> that makes sense. >> that is my update. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. seeing none -- we appreciate your time. supervisor kim is that the end of the presentations? >> yes. >> thank you. i want to thank you everyone for coming out. these are really hard issue as we try to move towards the transportation future of the bay area, but it's good that we're having these conversations. we'll now move to public

comment. i have two public comment cards. bruce and then jim lazarus. if there is anybody else, there are blue cards in the front or you can just speak after we call all of the names. >> good afternoon, chair wiener, supervisors kim and cohen. my name is bruce agate . this is critical as we are in the process of making decisions for multi-generational transportation infrastructure investment. between the transbay transit center. dtx and others to maximize

passenger capacity and operational flexibility. let's call these are foundational principles. uniform platform height boarding levels gives us ability to achieve this principle and this flexibility, allows you to adjust service plans daily, hourly, weekly, et cetera between the two systems to ensure that you get the most value out of both. is it possible? what is best option? i don't know the specific answer. however, as we heard today, there are examples either in north america or other parts of the world where similar issues have been addressed and we need to understand what it takes to get us there. we are pleased -- i was pleased to hear today caltrain and high-speed rail have been meeting and been involved in productive meetings. we also understand the need to move forward in a timely manner on electrification and high-speed rail and to minimize costs overall. however, please ensure no decisions are made, which could limit reasonable

options and alternatives before this joint review is completed, and can be taken under consideration by the various funding partners of the high-speed rail mou. any decisions made premature could limit possible options. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. lazarus and i will call two more names. >> good afternoon, jim lazarus, san francisco chance chamber of commerce. whatever you do, i think the leadership of peninsula in san francisco cannot make the mistake of ending up with a system with differential heights of platforms. anything that can result in reduced flexibility at stations and certainly at the end of the line at transbay has to be avoided.

it wasn't a height issue, but those of us who have been around since muni metro went into embarcadero station, know we have end of the line problems with capacity in san francisco with muni medical center metro. we thought it would be resolved and we still have problems at peak times i'm sorry if it's going to be a problem ultimately or a difficulty for caltrain to figure out the equipment that they need to buy. but we know what the international standard is for high-speed rail and that seems to be approximately 50" level floor, with the propulsion systems underneath. if that is what it has to be, we need to find a way to make caltrain's equipment compatible

with the needs of statewide high-speed rail and the need to have an efficiently operating terminus in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lazarus. next speaker. >> good afternoon. supervisor. so a few things. to start with the question on land use, stafford city used to be an abandon rail-yard and the reason it was abandoned it used to get flooded and used the dirt from the london tunnels to raise the entire thing by 30'. you need to think about opportunities on the transbay tunnel. you could be raising treasure island by 30'. you could be raising the bayshore baylines by x number of feet. on the subject of platform heights. in europe, every high-speed rail must be able to arrive --

every station will have to become compatible by 2020. the slides unfortunately shows waterloo station which was abandoned in 2007. the issue there is that the trains coming from europe with 30" train, but every domestic platform is 36". it's compatibility with the rest with 36", but the foreign trains from france are 30". the question of the high-floor emus. there are many problems. head room and they actually made the trains 50" higher, which means that they are not able to go through the tunnels. on the width, where they increased the width by 66"s, these trains if you actually

allow them in option directions in the tunnels will actually hit each other. the next problem that if you go double-decker, these trains unlike the single-levels are unstable, so they use non-standard tracks. they use a different gage. >> thank you. shirley johnson. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and supervisors. my name is louis, san francisco transportation authority. i would like to make a couple of statements of clarifications. we have been a big supporter of both high-speed rail and cal train for a long time. these are projects that we have