BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John McLemore (Chair), Maria Ayerdi (Vice Chair), Michael Burns, Mary Janney, Arthur Lloyd, Sophie Maxwel (10:20), Michael Nevin, Manuel Valerio, Ken Yeager

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Mike Scanlon, David Miller, Joan Cassman, George Cameron, Roger Contreras, Howard Goode, Chuck Harvey, Rita Haskin, Martha Martinez, Jennifer Buhr, Ian McAvoy, Liz Wiecha, Michelle Bouchard, Jerry Willard

Chair McLemore called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

FARE STRUCTURE/ PROOF-OF-PAYMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Chuck Harvey, Chief Operating Officer, reported that at the March meeting, the Board of Directors set today's public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed codified tariff changes that would be effective as of September 22, 2003. Mr. Harvey commended the staff, the Technical Advisory Committees and the public that worked on these projects and provided input. Mr. Harvey clarified that this is not an across the board fare increase. Under the proposal 59 percent of the fares will stay the same or decrease while 41 percent will increase Total revenues to the JPB would remain constant compared to the current fare structure, meaning there would be revenue neutrality. The proposal was not designed to provided equity for every ride as all transit fares have built-in inequities in base fares. Further, the proposal is designed to allow for efficient fare collection. Proof of Payment is a critical step for Caltrain to move forward with more efficient scheduling and running the Baby Bullet next year.

Michelle Bouchard, Senior Planner, reported that the majority of the proposals coming forward in the area of fare structure and fare policy emanate from a fare study that was conducted over the past year beginning last January. A hired consultant, with both national and international experience, aided in taking a clean look at the Caltrain fare structure and fare policy. The study was governed by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which was comprised of members from the three member agencies. It was the task of the TAC to guide the decision-making process and also to weigh issues that would impact counties differently.

The proposal consists of a reduction to the current zone structure, which includes bringing the number of zones from nine to six of an equal distance length of 13 miles. Ms. Bouchard noted that ease of the new system is very important since 40 percent of ridership is comprised of infrequent riders or first time riders. With a simple system staff believes that ridership will increase by converting infrequent riders into frequent riders. Secondly, the proposed zone structure will help streamline the TVM sales process because it will be easy to administer. The proposed zones are equitable and consistent, unlike the existing zones which vary in length from 5.2 to 15.6 miles. There is not one geographic market that benefits over another. Additionally, the proposal supports proof-of- payment enforcement since inspectors will generally know where people are likely to evade at the zone boundaries. In regards to point-to-point pricing, staff could not find a single example in this country of a proof-of-payment commuter rail that has point-to-point fares. A point-to-point system has an increased complexity for administration and also for customers to understand. For example, this type of system on Caltrain, being that there are 34 stations, would involve creating a 34 by 34 fare matrix and then multiplying that by the number of ticket types that are provided, which is 10. Needless to say, this is extremely complicated for the customer. This would also lead to increased TVM processing time and confusion. In actuality staff is looking to reduce, not increase, the process time. Fare enforcement is very difficult to achieve on a point-to-point system particularly with stations spacing as close as Caltrain's is. There would be increased incentive to fare evaders since every station is essentially a new fare zone. A patron could save money just by shaving a single zone off the price of their ticket.

In regard to Fare Media, staff proposed the elimination of the round trip ticket and introduced a zoned Day Pass, which will be priced at the same amount of the round trip ticket, which is two times the one way fare. This will allow for an unlimited number of trips, by the patron, in between the zones indicated on the ticket for an entire service day. Additionally, the proposal introduces a Senior/Disabled/Youth 10-ride ticket. Also, a zone upgrade ticket was proposed in response to public comment. Ms. Bouchard reiterated that this proposal would retain the deep discounts for frequent riders. Monthly pass holders will still receive a discount in the area of 33 to 40 percent, depending on how much they ride, and 10-ride passengers would receive a 15 percent discount.

The Discount Policy and Pricing is structured so that there would be a full compliment of discount tickets available for discount riders, whereas the youth age policy used to differ between fare media types it will now be standardized to under 17 years of age. Since youth are the transit riders of the future, staff wants to build more riders in this fare category.

In terms of Regional Fare Policy, staff recommended that the JPB subsidy of the Peninsula Pass be removed and that the Peninsula Pass be priced on a par with the Muni Fast Pass, which would become effective September 1, 2003 when Muni goes through its fare change. The limited Muni Fast Pass acceptance would be discontinued on Caltrain, which would become effective when the new Bayshore Station is operational south of the San Francisco county line. It would just be the first step and discussions with the Muni staff will continue in the future to achieve improving transfer policy. Continued evaluation of the transfer policy would be pursued, especially with the roll out of Translink.

Based on the fare structure being proposed, the revenue neutral pricing would allow for a $1.75 base fare and a $1.25 zone increment. Within this fare structure, the gap between the longest trips on the Gilroy extension and the trips between San Francisco and San Jose would be decreased. Where it used to be 12 cents and nine cents a mile, it is now fairly equal at 11 and 10 cents. The pricing on Caltrain compares positively to the average fare per mile in California and in National Commuter Rail peers.

Jerry Willard, Transit Management Analyst, reported that Proof-of-Payment is a self-service, barrier-free process for collecting fares. Key elements include that fare media must expire to assure revenue is collected and tickets can not be reused, providing incentive to purchase prior to boarding, and there needs to be some sort of inspection procedure to verify fare payment and prevent fare abuse and evasion.

Phase I was from April to August of 2001 where the TVM's were installed, the off board discount of $1 was re-instituted and there was a Quality Assurance Team formed that would go out and provide feedback. Phase II was approved in June 2002 which increased the off board discount and also provided some modifications to ticket validity periods. Phase III is targeted for September of 2003, which would be entering a full Proof-of-Payment system.

The second part of Proof-of-Payment is the ticket validity periods and the use of validators. Tickets have to have a built in expiration time which will prevent them from being misused and abused. In conjunction with the fare structure, staff proposed a three hour time limit for One-Way and Zone Upgrade tickets. The three-hour time limit was chosen in similarity with other properties with Proof-of-Payments allowing the customer the maximum travel time that they would need to complete their trip. Additionally, there would be the added value of stopovers during that three hours, meaning the vast majority of trips that are 20 miles, typically around one hour, the rider could technically make a stopover along the trip and not have to be re-ticketed.

The last part of the transition would include enforcement changes. There is anticipation that fare enforcement would be provided by conductors as they will still be the primary people on the train. Additionally, there would be supplemental transit police and Amtrak and JPB staff. One of the tools of enforcement includes the ability to issue warnings and citations. The maximum fine set by the state of California Penal Code under Section 640 is $321 but there is judicial discretion in all cases. Generally in neighbor properties the citation usually comes under $100 for first time offenses. There would be a customer sensitive transition both for a period prior to the change and after the change in September. There would be station ambassadors explaining the changes to the customers and showing them the TVM process.

Public meetings were held in each of the member counties, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara in February. Also in February, staff met with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) at which time they reviewed the fare proposal. The CAC brought a unanimous recommendation in March.

In summary, the proposal would provide for a simplified zone structure and fare media for ease of understanding and use by all customers, equity in fares over zone lengths and end-to-end and consistent fare media options for all rider groups. The customers will get maximum flexibility with the added values such as the zone upgrades. Additionally, the proposal would bring improved cost effectiveness and efficiency, allows the reallocation of resources to service and will maximize fare revenue collected while still maintaining revenue neutrality.

Prior to hearing Public Testimony Chair McLemore asked the Board Sectary to review the steps taken to inform the public on the issues involved.

The Board Secretary, Jennifer Buhr, reported that the JPB's official public information campaign to announce the public hearing and solicit input began after the March 6 Board action to advertise today's public hearing.

Chair McLemore questioned whether any correspondence was received from the public to be incorporated into the record.

Ms. Buhr replied that 173 e-mails, 46 web feedback forms, 6 letters, and 4 consumer reports were received regarding the proposed fare structure, collection and enforcement changes. All of the comments were included in the correspondence package or the supplemental correspondence package.

Chair McLemore called for public testimony and instructed that although normally there is a two-minute limit, today there would be a one and a half-minute limit.

Ken Feldstein, Foster City, commented that at the last meeting he mentioned that he had an invisible disability of vision. Mr. Feldstein commented that he is not able to view the TVM's adequately enough to properly use them. Mr. Feldstein pointed out that there are others that have disabilities, which make them unable to use the machines. They, like him, are occasional riders therefore they do not carry a monthly pass. Mr. Feldstein expressed his concern with receiving a ticket because he does not have any obvious disability. The conductors must be sensitive to this issue and Mr. Feldstein suggested that the conductors go through a class teaching sensitivity training. Further, a suggestion of taking the person's name and address and issuing an invoice for those with disabilities was expressed.

Michael Kiesling, San Francisco, commented that the zone structure proposal is good and he strongly applauded the proof-of-payment system. Also, equalizing the zone lengths would make the system equitable, even though some fares are going up. Mr. Kiesling expressed that he would have liked to seen a greater discussion of the point-to-point fare structure versus the zone system structure.

Paul Wendt, Belmont, commended the staff for their work. Mr. Wendt commented that he is very much in favor of Proof-of-Payment and recognized that the system would streamline operations. However, he dislikes the 13-mile fare zones. Mr. Wendt strongly favors the point-to-point fares structure and believes that it would greatly simplify the system rather than make it more complicated and asked for consideration of a point-to-point system.

Adrian Brandt enthusiastically supported the Proof-of-Payment proposal and commended the introduction of the zone upgrade and the day pass. However, Mr. Brandt was disappointed in the 13-mile zones as he felt it would not reflect input by key stakeholders. Specially, the proposal would not solve the fare equity problem with the zone boundary crossing as there are still a number of trips that have different station pair endings that are not necessarily adjacent to the zone boundary that are affected by this problem. A lot of commodities are sold based on exactly what is used and Mr. Brandt proposed that fares be based on the distance traveled plus a mileage fee.

Margaret Okuzumi, Bay Rail Alliance, reported that the general meeting of Bay Rail Alliance was dedicated to discussing the new Caltrain proposed fare structure and policy. Many members are favorable to the overall direction that Caltrain is going. However, there were some concerns with the continuation of the zone structure and Bay Rail Alliance would strongly favor a station to station distance based fare. The Proof-of-Payment system is relatively new in the U.S. but station-to-station systems under proof-of-payment should not ruled out and is done in Germany. Bay Rail Alliance understands the difficulty in switching to a point-to-point system but in the long run feels it would be more equitable.

Vaughn Wolffe, RailPac, expressed support for the general trend of the fare change. The point-to-point system can't be implemented during present times but is something that should be worked on for the future. Mr. Wolffe commented that he doubts that the ridership would decrease because of the complexity of the fare structure. With respect to the zones, Mr. Wolffe dislikes the increase in fares for certain zones. Additionally, he commented that a point-to-point structure would not be too complex to utilize.

Bruce Balshone, Citizens Advisory Committee, reported that the CAC did review the fare structure in March and supported the concept of proof-of-payment. The point-to-point structure came up at the last CAC meeting and the question of whether the equipment was adequate enough to do this kind of structure arose because the point-to-point system would present some merit within the CAC.

Jim Fink, Monterey, commented that he has a problem with the proposal in that he prefers to buy his tickets in advance because he does not want to miss his connections between transit modes. Mr. Fink also dislikes the proof-of-payment proposal because he likes the convenience of the system as it is now. Mr. Fink does favor the new zone structure, the day pass and the idea of stopovers however, he feels the three hour time limit is extremely inconvenient. Additionally, he would like to see the weekend pass continue and would like to be able to buy tickets ahead of time without them expiring.

Jeff Carter, Burlingame, commended the staff for all the work that was put into this issue. Mr. Carter strongly supported the day pass, stopover privileges, the discount 10-Ride, eliminating San Francisco as a zone and better fare coordination. Additionally, he endorsed zone upgrades. However, Mr. Carter is opposed to the citation based proof-of-payment, the elimination of onboard ticket sales, the 13 mile zones, the elimination of the weekend pass, the elimination of the Muni Fast Pass privileges plus the higher $1.75 base fare and the higher $1.25 per zone charge. Additionally, Mr. Carter suggested the introduction of a weekly ticket, which would be another added benefit to the system. Mr. Carter questioned how the 13-mile zones were determined. He commented that the riders would be more willing to make short trips if the system was more favorable for that kind of ride. In closing, Mr. Carter referenced the handouts that he submitted to the Board for review.

Betty Young, San Carlos, commended the Caltrain service in that it is safe, reliable and clean. However, Ms. Young is in the category of people that is going to see her fare increase more than 40 percent which would prompt her not to take Caltrain as much and she believes it would be fairly typical of other riders. Ms. Young urged that the more zones the better and questioned the ease of going to fewer zones. She feels the system is already very easy to use so decreasing the zones would have no great benefit and commented that it would be more equitable to spread out the increases in fares across the board.

Andy Chow also disliked the 13-mile zone structure. Mr. Chow feels that the new system is not expense neutral because some riders will save while some riders will have to pay more. Those who have a 40 percent fare increase are either going to switch zones or they are going to stop riding altogether. Further, Mr. Chow also favored a station-to-station structure.

Gerald Graham, Chairman of the JPB Citizens Advisory Committee, reported the CAC reviewed and recommended adoption to the Board. However, Mr. Graham commented that something that may not have been discussed was language barriers and suggested that Caltrain have multiple language instructions.

Michael Lumsden, Bellamine College Prep Students, commented that the proposed fare structure would reduce youth rider fares yet it would incease adult fares, in some cases over 10 percent. The fare change over four zones prior to now it would be $97.50 for a monthly pass. Under the new structure it would be $112.75. During the current economic position, it is understandable to raise fares but at the same time there doesn't seem to be a benefit because of the inequity in the fare structure. Mr. Lumsden further stated that the system would be penalizing the riders who are traveling in a low number of zones, which will result in a loss of riders. Additionally, Mr. Lumsden commented that the riders would also disfavor proof-of-payment because infrequent riders will not know that they need to purchase a ticket before boarding.

Michael Bauhm, Mountain View, stated that he rides Caltrain for convenience and the idea of putting any limitations on a ticket seemed outrageous. Many riders pre-purchase their tickets many hours before the actual travel time. Therefore if an expiration time is placed on a ticket, it should be a six-month expiration time and not three hours.

Francis Wong, Mountain View, suggested that Caltrain de-scope the proposal to only proof-of-payment. Collection envelopes, which can be serially numbered for tracing of payments, should replace onboard sales. There was a mention of an ADA exception system, which could easily be extended out to all customers. Mr. Wong pointed out that the citation revenues may not even go to Caltrain but may go to associate government agencies and Caltrain will not see revenue neutrality. Additionally Mr. Wong stated that the proposed citation process would place the support personnel in an unfair position. Finally, Mr. Wong questioned what kind of increase in service riders would see once the labor savings are produced.

John Tseng, Bay Rail, stated that Caltrain customers make their decisions based on economics. Since Mr. Tseng suggested a distance-to-distance fare structure because riders want to pay for how far they travel. He commended the Caltrain staff for their work put into the proof-of-payment system and supported the notion. However, there are still fare inequities existing in the system. Mr. Tseng would like to see a station-to-station structure come in place and would like to see the TVM and fare schedule issues looked into.

Bruce Jenkins, Train Riders Association of California (TRAC), strongly urged that the Board approve the Adrian Brandt proposal and reported that TRAC supports proof-of-payment.

Pat Dixon, Redwood Shores, questioned, in regards to the fare structure from page 5 on exhibit C, that the Mountain View to Palo Alto fares are increasing by $7.50 while Redwood City to San Mateo is being decreased by $12.00. Ms. Dixon urged the Board to re-look at the fare structure.

Ed De Lanoy, San Carlos, commented that conceptually the BART SFO- Millbrae segment is an extension of SamTrans and Caltrain and BART is merely an operator. Therefore, at the CAC meeting Mr. De Lanoy offered Caltrain customers to and from SFO should be able to buy one ticket for a through journey. Customers instinctually believe that any time there is a connection to be made, there will be an inconvenience and delay so if there were one ticket for all modes it would ease use.

David Miller, Legal Counsel, stated that the Board afforded the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. Therefore, all legal requirements have been satisfied and he recommended closing the public hearing. Further, a copy of the resolution amending the codified tariff was presented for consideration.

Motion (Nevin/Janney) to close the Public Hearing was approved unanimously.

Director Lloyd commented that this is not an easy decision to make. He recalled when the train used to have a point-to-point system in place. What Caltrain is trying to do is equalize the fares and Director Lloyd supported proof-of-payment and commented that it is long over due. As far as revenue from fines, Director Lloyd commented that no one wants a fine and he thinks that there will not be that many citations handed out. Further, there would not be a loss of jobs with the new structure. There would still be two conductors on every train. The frequent riders know that the conductors are quite busy and they are currently miss hatchecks because they are so busy with other tasks. Therefore, Director Lloyd feels that Caltrain can move to a POP without any problems. Additionally, he supported the Day Pass and feels that this is also long overdue. However, Director Lloyd was concerned over two things. The first was that the three-hour limit is a little too short for ticket expiration and perhaps staff should look at increasing the time. The second included looking at a point-to-point system for the future. Director Lloyd commented that Adrian Brandt's proposal appeared equitable. Yet, the bus system runs on El Camino, which could be an alternate route of transportation for $1.25 fare. Lastly, Mr. Lloyd encouraged staff to continue to look at a point-to-point fare structure for the future.

Vice Chair Ayerdi commented that she believes that Caltrain already has the technology today to implement a point-to-point system and doesn't understand the reason why we are not pursuing this alternative and encouraged staff and/or the consultant to respond.

Mr. Harvey responded that while point-to-point may provide for a more equitable fare structure, even in a point-to-point there has to be a minimum fare for the short distances that are traveled between stations. Therefore, the fare that the passenger would pay per mile or trip would vary so it would not allow for equal fares for everyone. The big difference between point-to-point and the staff's proposal is the complexity of ticketing. In a point-to-point system there would be over 5500 different fare classifications to issue a ticket. That is a 34 by 34 station matrix with 10 different ticket types for both the standard and discounted fares. In staff's proposal there would be 180. While the technology can be achieved with the machines, only 50 percent of sales come from the TVM's. The other 50 percent are sold by human beings in ticket offices, by mail or through outreach and other methods. Therefore, there is limited technology and many stations don't have enough TVM's. Staff feels that with the current proposal the number of TVM's and resources would be enough but if the complexity of point-to-point is attained staff believes that the technology in our current system would not support it.

Vice Chair Ayerdi questioned when Caltrain would have the technology to support a point-to-point system.

Mr. Harvey responded that if more Capital money was received to invest in the TVM machines for all of the stations and a ticketing system was developed inside the manual methods that are used, it would be much simpler. Today, the ticket vending machine supplier has not been able to supply Caltrain with a stand alone machine for use with other types of ticket sales, so we do not have the technology today. The machines that could support it are called TOM's and if these machines were made available at all stations, staff would be more willing to go to a point-to-point system.

Vice Chair Ayerdi questioned whether staff was looking into obtaining these stand-alone machines.

Michael Scanlon commented that personally he is a point-to-point advocate and he has spent time discussing point-to-point as well as a zone hopper with staff. Mr. Scanlon reported that staff has successfully convinced him that this proposal is as far as Caltrain is ready to go right now and what is being recommended today is not the final version of the fare structure that Caltrain will have. What is being recommended is a step in the right direction. Another one of the problems with going to a point-to-point system would be the discontinuation of some of the other ticket sales, like the 10-Ride and the Monthly Passes, which are attractive to riders and offer deep discounts. Mr. Scanlon commented that staff is coming forward with a recommendation that is the best option that Caltrain can do right now to make an enormous step forward and the point-to-point system has not been ruled out for the future.

Director Mike Nevin questioned how the three-hour time expiration was chosen.

Mr. Harvey responded that the three-hour limit was selected as a result at looking at other peer agencies that do proof-of-payment for a one way trip. Staff looked at the time it takes to travel the current system and studied to make sure that the times would not be increased too far because then it would defeat the purpose of selling a day pass. Mr. Harvey stated that there was flexibility for the time frame. Additionally Mr. Harvey responded to some of the public concerns. In regards to the disabled riders, he stated that there would be a tremendous amount of training with the conductors on handling disabilities, both apparent and invisible. There would be a fare exception envelope system on board. Also, staff would work with riders on an individual basis to train them with using the TVM's. The TVM's are fully ADA compliant meaning a blind person can use them and purchase a ticket. Secondly, in regards to language barriers, the TVM's are programmed to work with the customer in either Spanish or English. Further, staff will work with Communications to ensure that the proof-of-payment system is properly publicized. Finally, with the issue of being able to buy individual tickets, Mr. Harvey pointed out that if a rider bought a 10-Ride ticket they would only need to make five round trip tickets over two months. The rider could validate the ticket in literally less than five seconds before boarding the train so there would not be a rush to prior to boarding the train. Conclusively Mr. Harvey reiterated that the behavior that staff is trying to change is the three percent of revenue that is collected on board.

Motion to approve the staff recommendation for moving to the Proof-of-Payment System and the changes in the Fare Structure with an amendment to extend the expiration time limit to four hours was made (Nevin/Janney).

Director Lloyd requested that the possibility for a point-to-point system for the future be made part of the motion.

Director Nevin included the future consideration for a point-to-point system into the motion. Director Janney seconded the amended motion.

The motion passed, by roll call, unanimously.

Chair McLemore commended the staff and public for their input and hard work.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Vaughn Wolffe, Rail Pac, commented on station design. Hayward Park has a fence between the platform and the parking lot, which makes it cumbersome for the passenger to get off the train and walk to their car. The travel time is increased because of some of the station designs.

Jeff Carter, Burlingame, sent his compliments for the ambassadors working with the passengers during the first week of the baseball service. Also commended the Board for the consideration of the point-to-point system for the future.

Adrian Brandt, pointed out that the newly approved Tariff reads that a one way ticket would allow a rider to ride for three hours up and down the corridor as much as they wanted as long as it was within the zone purchased. However, Mr. Brandt stated that there is not a way to determine what station the ticket was purchased, therefore there is another problem with equity. Additionally, he expressed appreciation to the Board for the consideration of the point-to-point system.

Margaret Okuzumi, Bay Rail Alliance, commented that because of the station renovations at the Sunnyvale Station, the pedestrian access is unclear. Therefore, Ms. Okuzumi asked that whenever there is any construction at a Caltrain Station that there be proper signage directing the pedestrians.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The Board unanimously approved the following items under the Consent Calendar:

1. Adoption of minutes of March 6, 2003
2. Statement of Revenue and Expense, February 2003
3. Authorize an Amendment to Increase the FY2003 Capital Budget in the Amount of $2,695,000 for a New Total Budget of $89,891,668
4. Authorize Award of Contracts to Technology Insurance Services for Providing Insurance Broker Services

CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT

1. Announced that the South Bay Railroad Historical Society is having their Spring 2003 Model Railroad Show Open House during the next two weekends in Santa Clara.
2. Tomorrow, April 4th, in Burlingame will be the Baby Bullet Christening, which is a major step for Caltrain. The event starts at 1:00 p.m.

MTC LIAISON REPORT (SUE LEMPERT)

Michael Scanlon reported that Ms. Lempert was in Washington D.C.

REPORT OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Bruce Balshone reported:

1. At the last meeting the CAC discussed the Fare Structure and also discussed other work programs that will be upcoming in the next year.
2. This month the CAC will meet with BART to discuss how BART and Caltrain will interact with the new station in Millbrae.
3. In May the CAC will be going to Santa Clara and are currently working on an agenda.
4. In June, the CAC will have a presentation from the High Speed Rail Authority. There is some possible discussion on how it will interact with Caltrain and what funding sources will be available for upgrading electrification if High Speed comes to the Peninsula.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

• Michael J. Scanlon added to the commendation to the public and staff for their input and passion that was put into the previous tariff and fare collection issue.
• Key Caltrain Performance Statistics:
1. Ridership is down 7.8 percent from 28,400 to 26,245.
2. Revenue is down 4.5 percent

• Further Mr. Scanlon reported that recent special events at Pac Bell Park were successful. The special soccer event had an excellent turn out of about 3,200 riders. The exhibition baseball game had about 3,600 riders.
• Mr. Scanlon also reported that the Dome Cars that American Line used will be on display in the Santa Clara Depot on April 12th and 13th. It will be free to the public.
• Diesel fuel prices have been improving slightly over the past two weeks in comparison to the past several weeks.
• The new Caltrain schedule went into effect March 24th with only minor issues.
• The San Bruno Station was moved and re-opened.
• The Monthly Safety Reports were distributed to the Board. Staff is doubling efforts with the Wayside Safety.
• Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Harvey introduced Robert Doty who was recently hired into the Manager, Rail Operations position. Mr. Doty has a lot of experience in railroading and was the original Operations Manager for the BART system when it opened. He has worked on extensive construction and operations projects for commuter rail systems across the world.

Mr. Scanlon responded that special busses will be run for the event. Communications is already working on a campaign for the event.

Director Burns inquired if there was anything new with the Amtrak situation in terms of how it might relate to the contract.

Mr. Scanlon replied that that the Federal Government has required Amtrak retain the commuter services as part of the funding that they receive. Further, Mr. Harvey reported that Amtrak did receive their full funding component for the fiscal year. Within that component there is separate money that has been specially allocated to the commuter railroads that provide a fund for ongoing operation and transition if the unfortunate event that Amtrak imploded, Caltrain would be able to continue certain operations and transition into new operators. The funding is substantial, although it is unclear if it would be adequate for all operations. Additionally, the proposal for next fiscal year is being highly supported thus far.

Staff is continuing to work on contingency plans, which include taking some of the operating functions done by Amtrak in Philadelphia and bringing them closer to the local operation so that staff would have an easier transition such as crew dispatching. Further, staff is maintaining an open contact with the other bidders that participated in the solicitation.

• Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, updated the Board with some milestones with the construction on the weekends. In regard to the north end of the system, at the access and egress points of the yard project, there will be a rebuilding of all the tracks and the signal system. There will be a new Common Street grade crossing, all of which is substantially complete. Moving south, at Millbrae there will be an auxiliary platform and primary platform with the interface with BART. Currently there is a fence on the platform between Caltrain and BART, but as soon as BART opens, Caltrain is ready to go.

Mr. Goode remarked that the platform would not be used until BART opens.

Director Lloyd further questioned whether the platform is CTC controlled and whether there would be an option of stopping all trains at the station or just the Express.

Mr. Goode stated that currently there are not any immediate plans to use the platform but perhaps in the longer term.

Mr. Goode continued his report by stating that construction work at the Lawrence Station has begun. This station will be apart of the addition tracks and rebuilding of the Lawrence Station for Baby Bullet.

CALTRAIN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FACILITY (CEMOF) INFORMATION REPORT

Mr. Goode provided background on the project by stating that there is a lot of history associated to the project. Thirty percent of the design is already completed. The item is brought solely as an informational item today but will be apart of the Capital Budget and programming funds available for capital projects in a future meeting.

Liz Wiecha, Director Capital Project Management, provided the Board with updated information on the CEMOF project. Since the last update, in August of 2001, staff has completed a detailed staff analysis of the project scope and costs to ensure that the project will provide only the essential maintenance functions within the facility.

The current cost analysis indicates that the project estimate has increased to $122 million for maintenance functions and $17 million for operating and administrative functions. This cost increase can be attributed to a number of reasons. Included is the escalation of approximately 35 percent in the cost increase component. Escalation has been recalculated from the date of the last estimate, August 2001, to the completion of the project in 2006. The escalation included construction costs as well as engineering support, which would be required to complete the project.

Secondly, the project site condition is a reason for the increase. The site is located on a contaminated site that was previously a rail yard and has been found to contain unconsolidated soft soils that will require deep foundations. The soft soils in the contaminated materials, in conjunction with recent water quality regulations, will require a number of additional engineering and construction solutions. Deep pile foundations, additional waterproofing and additional construction costs in the access tunnel as well as the various pit areas are necessary to protect worker health and safety and also to comply with regulatory requirements. The water quality regulations that have been put into effect in the last two years will require that the JPB incorporate specific collection and treatment of all run off of the facility. These various site conditions can be attributed to another approximately 35 percent of the cost increase.

The third element of the increase is due to a number of elements that have been added to the project scope to address community concerns. These include the community wall, additional landscaping of the ingress and egress points to the facility as well as the cul-de-sac at Lenzen Avenue and enclosure of the train washer facilities to mitigate noise and other impacts on the neighborhood. Further, additional parapets on the shop structure, shown on the model, hide the electrical and mechanic equipment on top of the roof, as well as lighting design to preclude any light intrusion into the neighborhood. These elements account for another approximate 20 percent of the cost increase.

The fourth element stems from design modifications that have been made to the shop building to accommodate future enhancements of the Caltrain system, such as electrification. An increase in the shop size was required to accommodate clearances required for electrification. This issue accounts for about 10 percent of the cost increase.

Director Yeager questioned where the JPB would make up for the $44 million shortfall from the $95 million cost to the $139 million costs.

Ms. Wiecha responded that details will be provided as part of the Capital Programming but in general staff has identified funds within the Caltrain Rapid Rail Program over a two year period that would be available to fund the cost increase.

Director Yeager questioned whether staff anticipated looking at member agencies for additional funding.

Mr. Scanlon commented that this project might identify the administration building as an option and defer the building until more funding is made available. Also, the JPB may go after a Federal Earmark but there are a lot of other options. The item was brought to the Board today in advance of the budget meeting so that the Board would be grounded at the same level as staff. There has been thorough work done to see what cuts can be made to the administration side of the project as the maintenance side is not as easy to cut back on. Asking the member agencies for funding is currently not seen as an option.

Director Yeager questioned what the initial figure for the project was when first proposed.

Mr. Scanlon reported that in the beginning in was a Caltrans project so the amount is somewhat uncertain.

Director Yeager further questioned if when site was first selected the project was estimated at about $56 million.

Ms. Wiecha reported that the $56 million was the funding available that was programmed through the Caltrans efforts. The initial funding that was initially made available was further increased to $67 million. Whether or not the funding reflected the actual project costs is uncertain.

Director Yeager expressed concerned because of the $65 million to $95 million and then to $139 million differences in costs. He questioned how comfortable staff felt that the cost of the project would not continue to increase, particularly with the soft soils and the contamination.

Mr. Scanlon reiterated that the $65 million was funding available and was not representative of the actual project costs. However, now staff has a realistic number if the building could start. The costs have been made including inflation and will carry through the midpoint of the contract for the construction elements. Therefore on the construction side of the project, staff is comfortable with the figure assuming the construction can start now. If construction did start, projects from the Rapid Rail program would have to be put on hold. Further details will be given next month, after the budget is brought forth. Further internal work will be conducted for the project.

Director Lloyd commented that ACE is looking at building a new maintenance facility and questioned why Caltrain doesn't go to ACE and ask them for an agreement so Caltrain could defer some expenses.

Mr. Scanlon commented that there is a size issue with the maintenance facility. He stated that there may be potential for a contract basis agreement. However, it would not be in the interest of Caltrain to ask for further input on the design elements.

Director Lloyd agreed with Mr. Scanlon and stated that the suggestion was to have a contractual agreement.

Mr. Scanlon stated that a contractual agreement is something that can be looked into to help control costs but stated that there is a very specific agreement with the neighbors, which may require more work to be done during the day.

Director Burns stated that he agreed with Director Yeager with some of his questioning. Caltrain essentially doesn't have a maintenance facility currently. The way this project is going, there needs to be a thorough review of what funding is available and what construction can be done with that funding rather than what the JPB would like to have to meet the ultimate need. Perhaps there could be a staging process so there wouldn't be a preclusion of future needs. Director Burns also felt concerned with the solidity of the project's estimated amount.

Mr. Scanlon reiterated that the current cost estimate was solid. Further he reported that 20 percent of the increase was because of the community and 35 percent was due to inflation.

Mr. Wiecha further responded to the concern of soft soil and contamination in that the project cost included the costs for dealing with the issues.

Director Yeager expressed concern that there might be additional cost once the work begins.

Director Burns commented that Caltrain is already at the site and is already invested.

Mr. Scanlon remarked that it would be hard to walk away from the site with the money that has already been spent towards a portion of the cost estimate.

Richard Mylnarik, San Francisco, said there is reason to be concerned with the project. He said the reason that there is not a facility in San Jose is because the city had other uses for the sites. Further he agreed with Mr. Scanlon in that there is not an opportunity for an agreement with Amtrak or ACE because there would not be enough room. Mr. Mylnarik suggested that Caltrain look into the north end of San Mateo County, at Bayshore, for the facility because there is more space and the community may be more willing to assist.

APPROVAL OF VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Ian McAvoy, Deputy Chief of Development, reported that there were revisions to the Vision & Guiding Principles document, which will be used as staff moves forward to draft the first version of the Caltrain Strategic Plan. At last months meeting there were some concerns with the previous draft that were presented. The Board instructed staff to go back and review the document again. Staff was able to restore some text from the previous document in regard to the supporting statements of the specific vision and guiding principles. Also the staff updated the document with minor editorial changes to keep the objectives clear and concise.

Vice Chair Ayerdi commended staff for the revisions of the document. Director Ayerdi asked that the text under Opportunities, on page 11, be changed to read, "Electrification, for example, would be one of the ways to allow Caltrain to be extended into downtown San Francisco…"

The Board unanimously approved the Vision & Guiding Principles document.

REPORT OF LEGAL COUNSEL

The meeting was brought into closed session at 11:55 p.m. to discuss an existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 involving Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

The meeting was re-opened to the public at 12:10p.m.

CORRESPONDENCE

Previously distributed.

DATE/TIME OF NEXT MEETING: Thursday, May 1, 2003, 10 a.m. at SamTrans Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070

ADJOURNED: 12:15 p.m.