preclude us from common boarding some time in the future and allows us to accommodate that timing gap in a much more effective way so that for example given the vehicle example i was speaking from a lot of people have two doors at two levels that the higher level doors could be constructed as part of the vehicle. but it could exists at that location until such time we have our platforms and what efforts and configurations of stations whether it's 2 to 3 stations or the entire board at the corridor at that time we can simply open the doors and remove the seats from the higher boarding locations returning the seats to the lower boarding locations in

the level of capacity that certainly is central to this discussion allow us to much more meaningful and address the platform issues but also the extension of platforms to accommodate potentially longer trends in the future further assisting on the capacity side. we believe that approach will give us a level of flexibility that we may not standby 2 or 1 of the other that's part of what we will discuss with the board next week we think there is an opportunity of taking this evolutionary approach and ensuring we don't preclude our ability for the board landing in the future and address the needs of the cal train computers and the peninsula order. i would be

happy to answer any question. >> i don't think i have any specific question for high speed rail i think that is a good summary i want to thank the cal train jpb the high speed rail that has worked on this i think this is -- i appreciate the history of the original plans that can train had i think i don't know how we collectively missed this early on but finding a solution is essential it's encouraging to see there are solutions out there. of the cal train program which is about capacity if we think in the long term the compatibility is what is going to give us the best opportunity to provide capacity long into the future i think what is important for us to

recognize for the cal train program for the high speed rail program and for our facility for the next 100 years at least so i think it's really important that we take the long view we collectively all of the different authorities that are involved. therefore the transition is as you pointed out is the most difficult for us to deal with i think it's provides opportunity. and not to procollude approach is essential. it appears maybe the workshop can help balance this. that we heard a more of some of the challenges associated with trying to achieve this not to procollude approach we're short on benefits there are certainly

huge benefits for transit center and having platforms that can serve either of the trains or whatever trains come in the future i think similarly this is significant capital. in san jose so i think it's beyond just operational flexibility in emergencies having two common level boarding will bring so i'm encouraged that it is a pass forward the capacity issues were not quite accurately stated there there is potential seating capacity impacts the overall capacity including the standing could be even better or some of our trains looking as far as

less seething capacity to more standing capacity so there is more overall capacity there is potentially benefit during that inter interim period. i think what i would recommend than we did in december maybe we're able to do this now in advance of the cal train powers taking action in july that this board go on record with the recommendation that can help inform the deliberations of the cal train i don't know if the high speed rail authority is condemn plating anything like that timing wise that would have to be our next meeting at the june meeting --

>> you mean [inaudible] direction? >> that the board consider a resolution to that would recommend that the cal train joint powers board pursue a solution not to procollude solution that would allow us to build the transit center with a single height boarding platform i don't know if we need to get to the all of the a's and b's i think it would be helpful for this body to go on record in support of that unless something between now and june comes up perhaps in the workshop that it's openly problematic . >> i thought from what we were hearing they were passed that is that not the case? i have no problem putting in a resolution that everybody can hold hands about but i'm curious is there an issue there any more. >> i don't know if director lee can speak to where the cal train

board is they have not taken action yet. >> can i? >> sure. >> if i can just -- first let me do the easy part which is i do want to thank the cac for the time you gave us. a few nights ago to talk to you about this. also the cal lot staff and high speed rail there has been a lot of work done on this. it was fun sometimes and not fun sometimes it was worth the effort we have been putting into this. we also had the nine funding partners engaged pretty meaningfully in these discussions including the san francisco agencies as well as tjpa i want to thank them for

their time this is not their main job but they spend a whole lot of time with us. i think a few things it will by along -- it will be long winded but i will get to your proposal. the presentation that's being applied captured all we can know today this is sort of the crux of the problem. what i mean by that is i don't think anyone disputes the notion of a compatible system i don't think anybody disputes cal train and high speed rail capacity. i think those are given and i think the path we're on is it's not one or the other it's both we're trying to find a solution

so that it's not described as a sacrifice or trade off but we're trying to achieve both that is the only way we can get a common answer i think we have made progress to that that's what ben was describing. one of the the things we're doing which i think is getting misperceived is the original plan is outlined is because that is what was shared with our riders we owe the public an understanding what we're going to do what it's changed and why? it's not to make a statement that one is better than the other it's for the purpose of transparency and letting folks know how policies and thought processes involve that is the purpose of outlines the original plan. with we -- when we

describe the original experience from the original plan to the new plan it's the trust as we know it from the vehicle makers if that is okay then it's okay if it's not people have a right to say so. for that reason we also clearly as best as we can outline those issues. in terms of what benefits we get from shared platform while the bullet points were few it's not to reflect that it's not important compatibility is important of the state sta we believe in that goal as well as high speed rail it's the only way to do it because we have to share corridors everywhere throughout the whole state not just in our

corridor given lack of capital funding and lack of right away it's in everyone's interest to maximize utility out of every infrastructure we have that is not disputed when we look at the benefits from our corridor of these benefits it's something ben started to talk about is high speed rail and cal train is in the process of what the blend of service plan looks like and how we use the stations is it three stations is it more than three stations how many trains are we going to put through the corridor what are some of the infrastructure all of those are to be determined when you don't have a definition of that it's hard to list all of the benefits are. it's not there aren't any there are too many pieces to define what they are. one of the

things we're going to be working towards for our board workshop high speed rail has be invited to do with us and they will also have time to present we are going to try and elaborate on the benefits as best as we can given all of the unknowns and continue to share what kind of modifications we're making we should all know. what i can say from where we have started i would say it started very much as one or the other we found i think good common ground where we started to zoom in on achieving all. i will call it -- there is no perfect solution it's the best solution to deal with many goals. i can also tell

you that the general managers are engaged jeff morales and jim hartnet as well as mtc steve hevinger. there is significant enough common ground they think we can find a path to meet both goals. i say that the board has not taken action and staff will not be asking them to take action on what the vehicles look like until the july gep meeting it leaves one more meeting in june to see how all of this lands what i will say to everyone this presentation is getting played out the same story we got the one story it's being played out where ever

people want us to present it it's the prerogative of whatever board to make whatever recommendation policy they like what i can tell you of concern we have had from the beginning it's a nine party mlu with regional and state entities and everyone has a stake in it. in terms of a funding relationship in terms of a stakeholder relationship policy partnership level the sensitivity have the various boards take policies. i will be very transparent this came up before at the pga meeting there was a policy because it's a 3-county state wise multipartner relationship one entity setting policy or direction could impact what other entities do. if everyone

had the same position i think it makes it fine for the project everyone would have the same policy great everyone is on board. if people had slightly different policies or looking passed the comepromise it can be positional it's not good or bad it's what happens we can reach a common solution for multiple interests,so i i will respectfully ask everyone to allow us to go through that discussion between now may june and july but i also leave it up to the board to do whatever they feel is necessary to express their advocacy >> chair members i would just

add our goal is to land on a joint recommendation in terms of level boarding that cal train and high speed rail expect sub subsequent next week. to make a decision to land on a joint recommendation we can bring to this body certainly then we will ultimately share with the peninsula joint power's board. >> i don't know maybe i got the answer to my question maybe it's worth discussing. i assumed everybody unless there is boarding in our terminal total is a miserable bottleneck from the rail's perspective i thought that was the fundamental issue i thought there was question in fact i have been told that even with level boarding is going to

have to run very smoothie given the projection. i think maybe if it's one maybe we should put that out there maybe not everybody knows that. maybe everybody thinks we have a choice at least from my perspective there is not much of a choice operationally from the two systems. so i will stick with whatever you want to do but we can put it on the agenda and choose not to do it as well. is that the case? what is the feeling? pu it on the agenda don't want to take this all on my own. student: i will offer a suggestion. i think it's just a suggestion we're stating here taking care of the tjpa and how this relates specifically to

this board has to do with the gtc and downtown extension we have an interest of transportational as well. we have specific members of this board to specifically deal with djpa if the board feels it's important to take some policy as it relates to this may i suggest what is helpful is if we outlined what our important bolds for the downtown station if it's the maximize the operational flexibility. maximize each of the riders as they utilize the station. if it's too maximize capacity. those -- i can't see a reason why we wouldn't take policy on that that's how we want the it

to used the $2 billion i suggest that as an an approach it sinks up i could safely say all of our funding partners would agree with those goals think that's what we're working toward as a suggestion. >> i think that more or less makes sense. cal train is a multicounty agency as well as tjpa with state interest as well. it's not ultimately the nine parties that are essentially funding, and will soon be asked to fund as a higher level than previously agreed to at a program it's just the one joint power's board aleast according to the steps here that are ultimately going to make the decision. so i guess

i'm not seeing how by this agency or this board and it's responsibility for this transit center i would argue is not just one of 27 steps along the corridor it's the one that has access probably the highest density of housing and jobs. it seemses like it would be a responsible position or role for this board to to make clear to the ultimate decision makers whose decision will impact how we actually construct this center. so i don't see it as kind of an idle policy throwing a wrench into the work of the regional conversation it's advice from the board to inform the joint powers board

ultimately makes whether it's captured more as the principles and needses we're trying to address in building the center as you are suggesting it sounds like a slightly less december cryptive approach-- descriptive approach. i think it's odd for the board with such a big stake is to be silent on the matter which shalling is my feeling which is basis to take some action and we can determine when and how prescriptive that i don't know are we one of the nine signatories so we have a few stakeses here. >> i'm leaning that way given the discussion we need to have something and maybe for the meeting then and people should

be ready to have specific wording. how they would like a resolution to go because i mistakenly assumed it was an a versus b thing it's not we need to say it's important to us we know that. very important. >> i guess if the decision is somewhat made we need to offer a standby. no harm in that i would be happy to talk in the room with the other general managers and other mtc thinks that this board taking action will disrupt the regional conversation i don't think that but i don't want us to urging us to go down a path that would. i would be happy to work with staff to see what that resolution would look like we could alternatively

decide based on what information we have at the time i guess i'm not seeing the downside but opening to keeping things flexible. >> you seem to be on that same -- >> yeah first of all thank you for really doing the work together i think that is very important. that is definitely coming close. to meet the needs of what we're trying to do is have one level station that works for everyone obviously these issues arise i'm leaning towards ed's proposal that we kind of know what we want in our station we want both trains to come into our station our station is a destination for a lot of rider who are coming by train but i think there is some

work that still needs to happen in the interior design of what the interior space looks like. i have not felt that today it was good to talk about the door and one what level door can do with another level of door if the issue which seems to be a capacity issue what we're carrying like ed said some of the other agencies opening up more space to meet those types of goal that needs to be in the discussion i'm not sure what the next workshop is about but difficult netly again we cannot leave that piece open as we try to bring some -- or select some solutions. >> all right we will put something. >> we will try something for the board's consideration. i would ask the board. everyone agrees as director lee mentioned i wanted to point out vehicle

width is something that has been mentioned to us is with vehicle width compatibility we have received questions about [inaudible] time. that is critical to capacity that is something the board may consider as well looking at because the globe time the high speed rail is looking at today 30 or 40 minute that impacts how many trains we can bring into the center that may also be something we want to discuss it has come up we have been asked about it. >> i was surprised to hear and see the bicycle ridership that's what juan of these cars lookses like i can't say bicycle use will continue the way it has the last few year but it has

skyrocketed in the bay area. you are telling me we have to leave. >> yeah we need to 11 at 12:30. >> we have a roll la followed by june. due to the time constraints we have reduced the time to a few minutes. >> all right. so cal train basically arrived last year the only thing that is not quite right is the high speed rail that say disaster that conversation should never have taken place that is at the rfa level so i'm quickly going to go through this slide here you can't see it. let me give it up a little bit. so this is one of

the issues of the r f. including etf 001-03. look it up it's not a proposed rule it's not a regulation it's not even mtrm what is all of this mumbo jumbo about? so -- keep looking at the slides an advisor committee called the high rails advisory exity the task fore comes from. [inaudible] this is in the united states. the nationwide approach compatibility obviously --

(buzzer) height and everything else. there are six steps then number two this is where they're stuck right now the mtrm has not been issued by for good reason what people are trying to do never works it's that simple. the six step -- [inaudible] (speaking off the mic). >> do you have copies you can give? >> i was expecting them to be in your package. also assertification that's got 65 seethe seats -- >> why don't you e-mail it to the secretary. >> i did. >> you e-mailed them at 4:30 this morning there is no way --

>> we got to get out of here at 12:30 i want to see what it is you got. >> to the member of the board. >> thank you. >> good afternoon dena with friends of cal train i was glad to see cal train and high speed working on solutions to this important topic i have suggestions about goal-based phrasing and goal based metrics to be able to understand the decision options one is how many cal train trains per hour will be able to serve the south bay the answer to that question could be critical for the board to way in how much will we be able to provide the transa --

xektly the peninsula service and blended service will be able to be delivered not just how many seats but how many seats passengers per hour buzz those passengers will be the ones utilizing this facility and generating the revenue that will play out the long term business model of this facility. lastly two questions and suggestions one is given the compromises and issues and considerations of making the cal train train with a two door sluks solutions and complexities would it be time to also look (buzzer) on the high speed rail size with a 30 inch plan form using standard that may be time o