MEMBERS PRESENT: John McLemore (Chair), Michael Burns, Mary Janney, Arthur Lloyd, Michael Nevin, Sophie Maxwell (10:12 a.m.), Manuel Valerio, Ken Yeager

MEMBERS ABSENT: Audrey Rice-Oliver

MTC LIASON: Sue Lempert (10:10 a.m.)

STAFF PRESENT: Michael Scanlon, Joan Cassman, David Miller, Roger Contreras, Howard Goode, Chuck Harvey, Rita Haskin, George Cameron, Ian McAvoy, Martha Martinez, Jennifer Buhr

Chair McLemore called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Marshall Loring, San Mateo, addressed the impact of the proposed schedule revision and on Caltrain. Mr. Loring commented that he realized that the change was temporary. However, he expressed that he did not understand all the details and plans for the longer term. Mr. Loring stated that when he reviewed the proposed schedule he recalled what happened to the Key Systems rail service in the 40's and 50's which is something that Mr. Loring hopes won't happen again. Mr. Loring expressed that he sees the proposed schedule as something that will alienate potential riders. In particular interest, Mr. Loring is concerned with the 19th Avenue park neighborhood. The proposed service at Hayward Park Station is really going to impact the attractiveness of the San Mateo neighborhood. Further, Mr. Loring asked the Board to remember that Hayward Park serves about 1,000 residents within walking distance, has two freeway accesses nearby, a major hotel within walking distance and is the only station in San Mateo that will accommodate two trains simultaneously, in both directions, and also does not interfere with any grade crossings as San Mateo Station does.

Richard Mlynarik, San Francisco, commented that staff is doing an excellent job with the timetable revisions by trying to match service to rider destinations. Part of the problem of public representatives is that people will be petitioning for different stations. Mr. Mlynarik stated that he doesn't think that the proposed timetable is perfect. However, he acknowledged that the staff is making an excellent effort based on actually looking at ridership counts and not just imagining where riders should be. Since staff is trying to provide 30 percent more service with the same budget, there needs to be trade offs by having a few missed stops. Although it is not ideal, with the funding situation the way it is, skipped stops are inevitable.

Jeff Carter, Burlingame, brought attention to this mornings' Chronicle. There was an article regarding grade crossings and how people might judge trains as moving slower than they actually are and what happens in accidents at grade crossings. Additionally, there were a few solutions suggested within the article, such as predictors, etc.

Dadi Gudmundsson, San Francisco, stated that he lives in Potrero Hill and has taken Caltrain to work from 22nd Avenue to Mountain View for the past three years. Mr. Gudmundsson commented that the bullet train has been promoted by how much it can reduce riding times or long-haul rides going to and from San Francisco from Silicon Valley. However, based on stops announced in a preliminary plan, it seems that the Baby Bullet will not really fulfill this premise. Current and potential long-haul riders are being bypassed by not having a stop at 22nd Street. These are the very riders that are needed for the Baby Bullet to live up to what it has been marketing for. Mr. Gudmundsson reported that according to a Caltrain survey from October, 22nd Street is the second most popular boarding station. After bypassing this target audience at 22nd Street, the bullet stops at Hillsdale. With full respect to Hillsdale, Mr. Gudmundsson stated that it would be a wasted stop. The time savings that a Hillsdale rider can get are about 7 minutes to San Francisco or Silicon Valley, which Mr. Gudmundsson believes will not pull in new riders. However, the time savings that can be offered to long-haul riders is compelling and can attract new riders, twice as valuable as any rider that may be added from Hillsdale. Furthermore, Mr. Gudmundsson commented that the schedule needs to be asymmetric. There is no need for the morning north and south stops to be identical. Instead, the stops should be selected such that long-haul riders, as many as possible, can get on board depending on commuting patterns.

Paul Wendt, Belmont, expressed concern on the proposed weekend schedule not only because of the Belmont stop but also for the others that are proposed to be skipped, which Mr. Wendt commented defeats the purpose of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) since the residents would not be able to take the train on the weekends. Mr. Wendt stated that if the trains were turned around in San Jose, Tamien could be eliminated and more would be made of the other stops. Mr. Wendt stated he feels that since VTA is rather negligent in contributing to Caltrain operating costs, the elimination of Tamien is the obvious solution. Mr. Wendt also reported that according to the 2001 Caltrain rider surveys, Belmont has higher ridership on the weekends than San Carlos does and certainly more than Tamien does.

Perla Ni, San Francisco, stated that she also lives in Potrero Hill and expressed her unhappiness with the Baby Bullet skipping 22nd Street. As noted, 22nd Street is the second most popular boarding station on the entire route, according to a Caltrain survey, which serves approximately 300 commuters going down to the valley every morning. These riders have a strong need for the Baby Bullet service because it will take them a long distance. If Caltrain wants to improve service to these current riders and win new riders, then this route should be shortened. Ms. Ni commented that she understands that there have been some new trains added to compensate 22nd Street being skipped over by the Baby Bullet. However, looking at that schedule, there would be no limited trains between 7:08 and 7:58 or 8:10 and 9:32. During high peak morning commute hours there would be no limited trains. Furthermore, Ms. Ni commented that there is a question on the entire process of public comment. Although Ms. Ni realizes that the public comment time was extended, she expressed concern because as of yet there were no proposed schedules posted at Caltrain stations or on the trains themselves. Ms. Ni commented that there were announcements by the conductors that if a rider wished to make a comment about the proposed schedule, they could email or go to the website. However, Ms. Ni stated that it is hard to comment on something if they have never seen it in front of them.

Tom Maravilla, San Francisco, stated that he is the Bay Area Alumni Relations Officer for Stanford and commutes from the 22nd Street to Palo Alto three days a week. Mr. Maravilla commented that it was brought to his attention that the proposed schedule would skip the 22nd Street stop, which concerns him. From past experiences Mr. Maravilla reported that other people in the area live in that particular part of the city because it is convenient to go to the south bay from 22nd Street. It would take an additional 45 minutes to commute to the 4th & King station. Furthermore, since San Francisco is a concentrated population center, it warrants two stops.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Director Nevin commented in regard to Item 4(c), authorizing the executive director to dedicate property to the City of San Jose for roadway purposes, that grade separations are very important in the area of safety and many have already been accomplished with more to come. Director Nevin questioned whether there were other locations, such as Lenzen, that do not call for grade separation but rather, the possibility for closure without disrupting traffic.

Michael Scanlon responded that they are other locations similar to the Lenzen situation. Currently there are about 40 grade crossings and of those, there may be a potential for closure. However, closing crossings doesn't go over well with communities because they are links to neighborhoods and often are critical for fire and medical response. Staff will continue to look for other opportunities.

The Board unanimously approved, by roll call, the following items under the Consent Calendar:

1. Adoption of the Revised Minutes of November 6, 2003
2. Adoption of Statement of Revenue & Expenses, October 2003
3. Authorize the Executive Director to Dedicate Property to the City of San Jose for Roadway Purposes
4. Authorization to Increase the FY2004 Capital Budget by $200,000 to Assist Downtown/Transbay Terminal Project

CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT

Chair McLemore reported:

• Resolution of Appreciation was presented to Mary Janney for her service on the JPB since 2002.
• The Toys for Tots holiday train was a great success last weekend. Many thanks to staff, especially Janet McGovern.
• The Nominating Committee will make a report next month as to the chair and vice-chair for 2004.
• The West Bay Model Railroad Association will be having its 2003 Christmas Show December 12-14 in Menlo Park.

MTC LIAISON REPORT (SUE LEMPERT)

Sue Lempert reported:

MTC is now engaged in the hearings for the next Regional Transportation Plan. This year there will be focus on the transit shortfall and the desire by counties to have flexibility, particularly with streets and roads. The transit shortfall is extremely high this year for a number of issues including BART having lost its seismic retrofitted ballot box, which is now, included in the total transit shortfall figures. There is still time for public comment and there may be another public hearing in this area.

REPORT OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)

Gerald Graham reported:

This will be the last report that Mr. Graham gives as the chairman of the CAC for 2003. A Nominating Committee has been appointed for the 2004 chair and vice-chair and will report in January.

At the last CAC meeting there were public comments including Take Ones on the train, the proposed schedule, the Transbay Terminal and modifications of the parking structure at Millbrae. Maureen O'Sullivan gave a presentation on the Passenger Survey results and Ian McAvoy gave a comprehensive presentation on the Strategic Plan. Additionally, there was an update given on the conductor checks with adherence to Proof-of-Payment (POP). At the present time, there is only a three percent violation rate.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Michael J. Scanlon reported:

• Extended appreciation to Mary Janney for her contributions to the JPB.
• Key Caltrain Performance Statistics:
1. October ridership went from 727,711 to 701,563 riders, a 3.6 percent decrease.
2. October average weekday ridership was down 6.4 percent, from 28,177 weekday riders to 26,363.
3. October total revenue was off 10.5 percent from $1.82 million to $1.63 million.
4. On-Time Performance was 93.9 percent versus 95.3 percent from last October.
5. October shuttle ridership had an increase of 4.7 percent with 4,230 riders, up from 4,040.
• Toy for Tots Train was another success this year. Special thanks go to the Marine Corps, the Golden Gate Railroad Museum, and all the choirs and bands that helped with the festivities. Rita Haskin, Chief Communications Officer, made a presentation on the success of this year's train.

• The installation of the bridge at Bayshore Station was completed this past Sunday.
• The Public Hearing for the proposed schedule changes is anticipated to be held in February. Staff has received a wide variety of public comments regarding the proposed changes. The public comment period was extended to November 28, a three week difference. Significant concerns include the weekend service shutdown and skip stops of various stations. Since there are only two passing tracks that can be used to get around the local train, the process is quite intricate and requires careful planning. Staff is preparing the FY2005 operating budget, which will incorporate the fourth year in a row with the same operating funds. The initial Baby Bullet schedule is a starter set. Planning includes not only boarding points, but also matching destinations.
• ING Bank is sponsoring rides on BART. Therefore, today is a free-ride day on BART.
• Caltrain is eligible for a security grant of $800,000. The funds were made available under the FY2004 Appropriations Act for the Homeland Security Department. A recommendation on how to best utilize the funds will be upcoming.
• There was a fatality on November 14. A young male student reportedly leaped in front of the train in Palo Alto.

Mr. Scanlon responded that proposed timetables were discussed extensively at the six public meetings, which were held in San Francisco, San Carlos, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose and Gilroy.

Director Maxwell referenced the actual proposed schedule and asked if it was posted and whether they were left on the seats of the train.

Ms. Haskin reported that there were six public meetings, which were advertised on the train through Take Ones.

Director Maxwell asked for the definition of a Take One.

Ms. Haskin responded that on board each of the trains there are holders containing all public notices, such as the Caltrain timetable or brochures. Customers are familiar with the locations of these holders.

Ms. Haskin continued by stating that Take Ones were done for all of the trains in regard to the proposed schedule. The same information was posted, which told of the six public meetings plus how else the public could comment, so that they knew that they did not need to attend the meeting but could also call in to the phone center or email their comments. Therefore, the information was on-board the trains and posted at the stations. However, the timetable was not posted because staff found it most effective if the timetable was posted on the Website. Additionally, there was notice that people could call into customer service and a timetable would be sent to them. When the public comment period was extended, staff went through the whole process again with revised flyers and Take Ones. The conductors on the trains also made announcements and there was media coverage.

Director Maxwell commented that she received many complaints through her office and at her community meeting that the process wasn't done as extensively as it could have been. Since this is possibly one of largest schedule changes in the history of the railroad, it seems that maybe a more extensive public outreach and notification should have been done. It concerns Director Maxwell that people knew more about the Toys for Tots train than the proposed schedule.

Ms. Haskin stated that staff would certainly do an extensive outreach and announcement of the public hearing.

Director Maxwell questioned how the public outreach process would be handled for the public hearing.

Ms. Haskin responded that all the cities and libraries were notified and sent a copy of the proposed timetable so that they could make them available for people to review them. Ms. Haskin questioned if there were any suggestions on how to improve the public outreach process.

Director Burns suggested using the CAC as an outreach tool because they would be able to make connections with county members and the public.

Director Yeager commented that while notification to the public of the meetings was extensive, the issue seems to be that people didn't really know what the proposed time changes were so that is why it was difficult for them to comment. Director Yeager stated that at VTA whenever there is a schedule change, VTA states what the changes are so that people know what they are commenting on. Director Yeager offered that it may not be fair to have to make people take an extra step and go look on the Website for the changes and in the future staff could perhaps include the changes with the notification.

Director Maxwell agreed with Director Yeager in that the changes of the schedule should be made available for the public, as well as the notification of the change, especially since it is one of the largest changes for the railroad.

Mr. Scanlon pointed out that there is plenty of time to put the proposals in advertisement and at the stations. Staff started very early with this outreach. As of right now, there have been over 1100 emails, 30 letters and three petitions. These comments include positive messages.

Director Maxwell stated that certainly there was some outreach. However, a better job needs to be done and there needs to be acknowledgement of that.

Mr. Scanlon responded that staff will put the schedules out and include it in the future notices so that before the public hearing in February, people know what the proposals are.

Director Maxwell asked clarification on whether it is necessary to have the same pick up and drop off stops from the south and the north.

Mr. Scanlon responded that there doesn't have to be.

Director Maxwell asked if the Baby Bullet picked up on 22nd Street southbound, would there have to be a stop at 22nd Street going northbound.

Mr. Scanlon commented that this schedule was built to bring people from the south to the north. Over the years that has changed. Because of the job market, the railroad may end up leaning toward the south rather than the north for the morning ridership because many riders live in San Francisco but work on campuses dispersed throughout Silicon Valley. Because of the desire to have repeat patterns with crews and to have memory schedules, it is preferable to have the even schedules.

Director Maxell asked if a 22nd Street southbound stop would need to be accompanied by a similar stop in the northbound direction, as a point of clarification on the stopping pattern at 22nd.

Chuck Harvey, Chief Operating Officer, said that Baby Bullet schedule criteria was developed with the technical staffs of all member agencies, focusing on integrating Express schedules with limited stop and local trains. The decision was made to establish identical station stops in both directions for convenience and predictability. Differing station stops and alternate stopping patterns were considered, but fiscal efficiencies dictated consisted schedules in both directions.

Director Maxell asked whether this information was provided to a patron asking about parallel stopping patterns, and Mr. Harvey replied that it was.

Mr. Scanlon commented that there doesn't have to be a stop in both directions because there is no technical reason for it. However, it was a policy decision to have consistent schedules in both directions.

Sue Lempert commented that there is certainly a lot of excitement and expectations with the Baby Bullet. Ms. Lempert also was wondering why there could not be alternations of stops. However, she now understands that there are so many constraints with money and passing tracks. Ms. Lempert stated that the public needs to understand that this is a pilot to see how the service will work. As more money comes in and as more passing tracks are available, there will be many more options so that some of the stations that may be bypassed now may be picked up later. For now, the service will be very limited and the public needs to know that it is not the ideal.

Director Maxwell stated that recently San Franciscans passed and extended that 8.5 percent sales tax. Some of the money will be dedicated to this system, which is why people may be taking more of an interest. Because of the interest, there needs to be a better public process so that people know that it is a pilot program and there may be another chance later down the line.

Mr. Scanlon commented that this was turned into a pilot program because of the operating budget constraints. Original projections included service running at least every hour and possibly even half hour, all day long. An ultimate schedule could include trains running at different times at different stations.

Mr. Scanlon reported that Ian McAvoy would be presenting the Strategic Plan, which is Item 11 on the agenda. However, since Mr. McAvoy needed to leave early, Mr. Scanlon asked that Item 11 be taken out of order. The public comments regarding the report of the Executive Director would be received after the presentation.

Director Maxwell reported that in order to conserve time, she would submit her further questions to staff and requested responses in writing.

Vaughn Wolffe commented that in the performance statistics and cost performance there always seems to be a reference to the economy, which is overplayed. Mr. Wolffe stated that the economy and ridership is much better now then it was in 1995 so making reference to last year's economy is no longer complete and accurate rationale for a decrease in ridership. More indicative of why the ridership is not good may be because on-time performance is below 95 percent. Mr. Wolffe further commented that ridership won't likely increase until more service or better service is provided. In continuation with previous comments, if there is a presentation on survey results, then the survey should be explained, including how staff is capturing the comments of non-riders. If surveys are done only with those who already ride and the existing service favors San Francisco in the morning commute, then most of the people who respond will favor San Francisco in the morning commute. The proposed schedule continues the imbalance and it should be synchronized. With respect to Ms. Haskin's earlier comment on suggestions of targets for outreach, Mr. Wolffe responded that employers, shopping centers, schools, prospective students to Stanford should be included.

Jeff Carter showed an example of the Take One regarding the proposed schedule and the flyer for the Trains for Tots train. Regarding 22nd Street, Mr. Carter commented that there are nine trains southbound between 5 a.m. and 8:37 a.m. Referencing a chart of morning boarding, Mr. Carter reported that San Francisco has 1,007 and 22nd Street has 333, which Mr. Carter states is the second highest boarding in the morning southbound commute. Mr. Carter also acknowledged staff and commended their hard work on this project.

Dadi Gudmundsson commented that the survey results are not meaningless. They actually point to where there is potential to pull in riders and where the riders are who care about riding times. The people going from Millbrae to Hillsdale possibly don't have the same emotional feeling when it comes to riding time because plus or minus a few minutes will not matter. However, it does matter to the riders who are going from end to end. Mr. Gudmundsson states that there needs to be focus on maximum riding times when putting the schedule together. It is not a coincidence that San Francisco and 22nd Street are the top two boarding stations and Mountain View and San Jose are listed as third and fourth in the survey results. In terms of adding 22nd Street, Mr. Gudmundsson feels that it would be easy to add the station without interfering with the plan, particularly with taking out Hillsdale, which Mr. Gudmundsson believes is a useless stop. People at Hillsdale have average and good limits on their maximum riding times and frequent service without the Baby Bullet because they only have to go half way.

Mr. Scanlon advised Mr. Harvey to allow Mr. Gudmundsson the opportunity to see the rail simulation model.

AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO WILLIAM P. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF MINI-HIGH PLATFORMS AT VARIOUS STATIONS

George Cameron, Chief Administration Officer, reported that Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) recommends that the Board approve the award of the subject contract to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder, William P. Young Construction, Inc. of Concord for $266,893 and the authorization to the Executive Director or his designee to execute a contract in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the solicitation contract documents.

Richard Mlynarik, San Francisco, commented that once again the engineering staff came in with an estimate that was slightly above the bid, which shows professionalism within the staff.

The motion to award the contract to William P. Young Construction, Inc. passed unanimously, by roll call, and Resolution 2003- 50 was adopted.

AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DIGITAL CONCEPTS, INC. FOR A TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PREMIUM SERVICE PACKAGE

George Cameron, Chief Administration Officer, reported that the Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) recommends that the Board approve authorization to the Executive Director to execute an agreement with Digital Concepts. Inc. (DigiCon) of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, for a purchase of a Premium Service Agreement (PSA) for the DigiCon Digital Traffic Control System at an estimated cost of $728,371 for a five-year term and authorization to the Executive Director to make annual renewals of the five-year term agreement to obtain the lowest rate for the annual fees, consistent with the best interest of the JPB.

The motion to award the contract to DigiCon passed unanimously, by roll call, and Resolution 2003- 51 was adopted.

PRESENTATION ON DRAFT CALTRAIN STRATEGIC PLAN & NOTICE OF PLAN CIRCULATION TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT

Mr. Scanlon prefaced the presentation by stating that since operating funds have remained the static for four years in a row, there are many constraints on long-range planning. Nevertheless, staff is looking at what Caltrain service will be in the next 20 years and how to make Caltrain a world-class railroad.

Ian McAvoy, Deputy Chief of Development, made a presentation on the draft Strategic Plan. Staff has been working extensively over the past 12 months with not only the member agencies but also with various advocacy groups. The goal of the plan is to develop a balance between vision and practicality. The plan has been designed to approach a series of options. The presentation included the vision of the plan, the guiding principles, the plan approach and strategic initiatives. Presented were four different scenarios as follows:

Scenario 1: No Build	Scenario 2: Moderate Growth	Scenario 3: Enhanced	Scenario 4: Build Out
SERVICE	SERVICE	SERVICE	SERVICE
Express/Limited/Local	Express/Limited/Local	Express/Limited/Local	Express/Limited/Local
Up to 86 trains per day	Up to 100 trains per day	Up to 136 trains per day	Up to 138 trains per day
AWR projections: 39,800	AWR projections: 60,000	AWR projections: 68,000	Joint use with CAHSR
.	.	.	AWR projections: 72,000
CAPITAL	CAPITAL	CAPITAL	CAPITAL
Normalized replacement and rehabilitation only	Systematic rehabilitation	Systematic rehabilitation	Rebuild system to 4 tracks
Cost: $1 billion	Capacity improvements	Capacity improvements	Full grade separated ROW
.	Electrification	Electrification & DTX	Electrification & DTX
.	Cost: $2 billion	Cost: $2.5 billion	Capital costs: $4.9 billion
FINANCIAL	FINANCIAL	FINANCIAL	FINANCIAL
Pay as you go	Pay as you go	Innovative finance	Innovative financing
Historical amounts	Historical amounts	Increased amounts	CAHSR bond financing?
.	Capital deficit: >$0.2 billion	Capital deficit: >$.05 billion	Capital deficit: >$3.2 billion

Also included in the presentation were economic evaluations, policy considerations and the conclusion that the vision is achievable with the continuum policy approach.

Chair McLemore requested that the "no build" option be renamed to "status quo".

Director Nevin questioned whether the projected 68,000 average weekday riders under the enhanced scenario would be absolute.

Mr. McAvoy responded that the incremental growth in ridership is very marginal. There will be a lot more growth in the system as high speed rail and Caltrain become more compliant with each other.

Director Lloyd questioned whether staff was looking in the financing of high speed rail, which will require both electrification and removal of all grade crossings.

Mr. McAvoy responded that staff has been tracking that element. The decision point will be in November of 2004.

Director Lloyd commented that there are some indications that the high speed rail bond issue will be postponed because of the financial situation of the state.

Mr. McAvoy stated that in the planning process, staff must assume that everything is open and all the opportunities that present themselves are available right now, including high speed rail bond. Until the bond is postponed or removed, staff is continuing with a general strategy that it would help to improve not only the Caltrain system but in building a high speed rail system.

Director Lloyd questioned whether staff was looking for money for the downtown extension as well.

Mr. McAvoy responded affirmatively.

Director Yeager questioned the planning continuum and whether one of the options included a progression from status quo to other levels.

Mr. McAvoy responded yes, that one of the things that the strategic plan can give Caltrain is policy direction and a vision. As staff comes back to the planning effort, there will be a need to complete a short-range transit plan, which is a mandatory document that is submitted to MTC. The short-range transit plan allows for Federal funds. Therefore, there is flexibility to create timelines within the plan on where the growth is going to be.

Director Yeager commented that flexibility is key because Caltrain doesn't want to go for something that can't be delivered yet, Caltrain doesn't want to be at status quo, either. It seems that improvements will come at different time periods.

Mr. McAvoy agreed and stated that is why there is a continuum.

Director Yeager asked what the dates of the three public meetings would be.

Mr. McAvoy responded that the meeting on January 28 will be in San Mateo, and staff is establishing times and dates for Santa Clara and San Francisco.

Director Yeager asked that once the time and date was established to let the board members know.

Director Nevin questioned where the meetings would be held.

Mr. McAvoy responded that the meeting in San Francisco will be held at the Transportation Authority offices and the meeting in San Mateo will be at the SamTrans headquarters. Staff is looking at having the meeting Santa Clara County meeting at the City of Santa Clara police station or somewhere near the Caltrain station.

Chair McLemore commented that the police station would be a great location considering the amount of people who would probably show up.

Chair McLemore also stated that he does not favor a policy delaying design or deferring electrification. Chair McLemore commented that he gets frustrated when electrification is deferred because of economic issues. Initial positions have been made and votes have been taken. Therefore, Chair McLemore requests that word "defer" be erased from electrification because it takes the focus off the strategic plan.

Director Nevin commented that in 1992 when the JPB funding format was established, it was done from morning ridership. Now there is an opportunity to have an equal one-thirds partnership based on current trends.

Director Lloyd further commented that the word "defer" puts a negativism in the plan, especially since Caltrain can't do the downtown extension without electrification.

Chair McLemore also requested that a private meeting be arranged for the new Santa Clara JPB member, Don Gage, since he is the incoming chair of the VTA.

Doug Delong, Mountain View, commented that one of the scenarios involved doing complete grade separations because of the safety issues, etc. Mr. Delong stated that the problem of road and rail conflicts is really the fault of Congress. Because of the railroad grant acts, the railroads could have been compelled to fence the right of ways if they were killing too many cattle. However, it didn't matter how many humans they killed. They couldn't be compelled to fence the right-of-way to save humans. All the railroads today, including a public railroad like Caltrain, have inherited this mess that Congress really created. Mr. Delong offered that it might be appropriate in terms of creative innovative financing to suggest that a national trust fund be established to work toward eliminating all highway railroad grade crossings in the entire country and prioritize them on a national basis based on where the accidents are occurring. There is a huge issue on the reliability of service in addition to the human life and trauma with the train crews.

Vaughn Wolffe commented in specific reference to electrification by stating that the plan is constrained by the definition of electrification. As it is presented, it is electrification of everything. Originally, in 1992 when the feasibility study was done, there was only a need for two lane railroad. The long term cost for the eventual finish cost may be greater if electrification was done on two tracks, then three, then four. However, if tracks three and four are not going to be built for many years, it may be beneficial to electrify now. The cost of electrification shrinks, but it is really only added on to those projects when they expand. Mr. Wolffe stated that one of the stumbling blocks of electrification has been that it has always been presented as an add-on project even though it has been voted on by the JPB in 1999 as a rehabilitation project. Electrification needs to be viewed as a rehabilitation project and until it has been viewed as such, it will always seem out of reach.

Jeff Carter stated that obtaining permanent and dedicated funding for Caltrain is very important. Although there is the sales tax measure, it seems volatile right now. Additionally, joint development may be a good source of funding to built the downtown extension. Lastly, Mr. Carter reported that when copies of the presentations are made in black and white it is hard for the public to read because columns become blacked-out.

REPORT OF LEGAL COUNSEL

None.

CORRESPONDENCE

Previously distributed.

DATE/TIME OF NEXT MEETING

Thursday, January 8, 2004, 10 a.m. at the SamTrans Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070.

ADJOURNED

Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.