agenda - caltrain.comjpb+final+agenda.pdfpeninsula corridor electrification project monthly report...

Note: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board.

of 3

AGENDA PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos CA 94070

December 7, 2017 – Thursday 10:00 a.m.

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Public CommentPublic comment by each individual speaker shall be limited to two minutes

5. Consent CalendarMembers of the Board may request that an item under the Consent Calendar be considered separately

a. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 2017

b. Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for October 2017

c. Receive Key Caltrain Performance Statistics – October 2017

d. Receive State and Federal Legislative Update

e. Receive Capital Projects Quarterly Report – 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2018

f. Receive 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey Key Findings

g. Award of Contract to Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. (Wells Fargo),San Francisco, CA, or its Anticipated Successor Firm, USI Insurance Services(USI), for Insurance Brokerage Services for a Firm-Fixed Cost of $413,760 andfor On-Call Insurance Brokerage Services for a Not-To-Exceed Amount of$125,000 for a Five-Year Term

h. Receive State Rail Assistance (SRA) Program Funds As Set Forth in theCertification and Assurances and Applicable Statutes, Regulations andGuidelines

i. Receive State of Good Repair Program (SGR), as Set Forth in the Certificationand Assurances and Applicable Statutes, Regulations and Guidelines

6. Chairperson’s Report

a. Appointment of Nominating Committee for 2018 Officers

b. Considerations for a Potential Transactions and Use Tax Ballot Measure

7. Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017

JEFF GEE, CHAIR KEN YEAGER, VICE CHAIR CHERYL BRINKMAN JEANNIE BRUINS DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS GILLIAN GILLETT ROSE GUILBAULT DAVE PINE MONIQUE ZMUDA

JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board December 7, 2017 Agenda


of 3

8. Report of the Executive Director

a. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Monthly Report

b. Resolution of Appreciation for Mark Simon

9. Caltrain Business Plan Update and Scope

10. Caltrain Fare Study Update 11. Authorization to Receive Funding and Act as Project Lead for the Redwood City

Grade Separation Project and Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Budget from $70,473,295 to $71,323,295

12. Award of Contract to J. Powers Recruiting, Inc. (J. Powers) of Sacramento, California to Provide Technical Recruiting Services for a Not-To-Exceed Amount of $5.6 Million for a Five-Year Term

13. Receive Proposal to Create a New Civil Infraction Process for Fare Evasion

14. 2018 Legislative Program

15. Correspondence

16. Board Member Requests

17. General Counsel Report

18. Date/Time of Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070

19. Adjourn

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board December 7, 2017 Agenda


of 3

INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board.

If you have questions on the agenda, please contact the JPB Secretary at 650.508.6242. Agendas are available on the Caltrain website at www.caltrain.com. Communications to the Board of Directors can be e-mailed to [email protected]. Location, Date and Time of Regular Meetings Regular meetings are held at the San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building located at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, one block west of the San Carlos Caltrain Station on El Camino Real, accessible by SamTrans bus Routes ECR, FLX, 260, 295 and 398. Additional transit information can be obtained by calling 1.800.660.4287 or 511. The JPB meets regularly on the first Thursday of the month at 10 a.m. The JPB Citizens Advisory Committee meets regularly on the third Wednesday of the month at 5:40 p.m. at the same location. Date, time and place may change as necessary. Public Comment If you wish to address the Board, please fill out a speaker’s card located on the agenda table and hand it to the JPB Secretary. If you have anything that you wish distributed to the Board and included for the official record, please hand it to the JPB Secretary, who will distribute the information to the Board members and staff. Members of the public may address the Board on non-agendized items under the Public Comment item on the agenda. Public testimony by each individual speaker shall be limited to two minutes and items raised that require a response will be deferred for staff reply. Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities Upon request, the JPB will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and a preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be mailed to the JPB Secretary at Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306; or emailed to [email protected]; or by phone at 650.508.6242, or TDD 650.508.6448. Availability of Public Records All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306, at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Board of Directors Meeting

1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos CA 94070

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Bruins, D. Davis, G. Gillett, D. Pine, K. Yeager, M. Zmuda

MEMBERS ABSENT:

C. Brinkman, R. Guilbault, J. Gee

STAFF PRESENT: M. Bouchard, J. Cassman, A. Chan, J. Hartnett, M. Martinez, C. Mau, S. Murphy, M. Simon

Vice Chair Yeager called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Recessed to closed session 9:30 a.m. GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT

a) Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. v. Parsons Transportation Gsroup et al; San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. Case No. 17CIV00888

b.) Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Parsons Transportation Group v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board et al; San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. Case No. 17CIV00786

Reconvened to Open Session at: 10:03 am Joan Cassman, Legal Counsel stated that the Board met in closed session at 9:30 am and received a report on the litigation matters. No action was taken. Adjourned at 10:03 a.m.

of 6

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Board of Directors Meeting

1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos CA 94070

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Bruins, D. Davis, G. Gillett, D. Pine, K. Yeager, M. Zmuda

MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Brinkman, R. Guilbault, J. Gee (Chair)

STAFF PRESENT: M. Beveridge, M. Bouchard, D. Couch, J. Cassman, A. Chan, C. Gumpal, D. Hansel, J. Hartnett, L. Larano, M. Martinez, C. Mau, S. Murphy, M. Simon

Vice Chair Ken Yeager called the meeting to order at 10:03 am and led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT Aleta Jone Dupree, Oakland, said to update the payment vending machines and consider applications to capture fare paying passengers that do not have Clipper such as tourists. Andy Chow, Redwood City, said the Governor signed the legislation that authorized the sales tax in three counties to support operating costs. He is concerned that the sales tax funding will not be used for Caltrain. He suggests that we use the funding to support Caltrain improvements. Shirley Johnson, San Francisco, Bikes ONboard, said the bicycle mode share is at risk; the plan is to decrease bike capacity on electrified trains. She suggested running four bike cars in the diesel trains instead of the three; this would make up for the lost bike spaces and help the bicycle mode share. Drew, San Mateo, said he attended the High Speed Rail public meeting and was impressed by how staff responded to all the challenging questions and appreciates the staff’s effort. Doug Delong, Mountain View, acknowledged the tremendous work on the Business Plan and is excited to see Caltrain transform itself not just in railroad projects, but in building a relationship with the community. Vincent De Martel, Palo Alto, is disappointed to discover that the new train designs will have a lower number of bike spaces and seats. Three most important criterias for a commuter are reliability, travel time and cost. He said the agency needs to offer as much space as possible and not less.

Joint Powers Board Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2017

Page 2 of 6

Adina Levine, Friends of Caltrain, said adding more bike space on the train is not the way to do it; in the past the decision from the Board and public is more frequent service and shorter trips. She also said that Caltrain is seeking funding for longer trains and more capacity for passengers. She understands the bike parking issue but the agency needs to eliminate the practice of denying service for riders. Janice Murphy, Belmont, said she attended a safety meeting the other night and there was a safety concern on two electrification systems that are not compatible. She would like to know how the staff will address this technical issue. Jeff Carter, Millbrae, provided a report on the Caltrain zone system inequities and how the Caltrain Fare Study must address the inherent inequities of the current zone system. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, said the previous public commenter’s report provided good analysis that the lower income riders are paying the highest fares. The data reflects significant issues and opportunities for improvement including addressing the smaller businesses that do not have access to the Go Pass. She suggested this issue could be potentially included in the Business Plan. CONSENT CALENDAR

a. Approval of Minutes of October 5, 2017 b. Approval of 2018 Meeting Calendar c. Acceptance of Statement and Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Year

Ending June 2017 (Unaudited) e. Receive Key Caltrain Performance Statistics – September 2017 f. Receive Legislative Update g. Receive Caltrain Fare Study’s Update h. Award of Contract to Rail Power Services LLC for the Inward Facing Camera

System Installation Project for a Total Amount of $243,356 – Resolution No. 2017-54

i. Award of Contract to Brannon, Inc. dba Smith Electric Service for the Central Control Facility HVAC Upgrade Project for Total Amount of $439,456 - Resolution No. 2017-55

Motion/Second: Bruins, Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda Absent: Brinkman, Guilbault, Gee ACCEPTANCE OF STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR SEPTEMBER 2017 Mr. Derek Hansel, Chief Financial Officer, reported on the revenue for first quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, expenses and cash on hand. He said the new Senate Bill 1 taxes have been included in the budget and forecast. He will provide more information on revenue verses prior periods to track the effects of the fare increase. Motion/Second: Gillett/Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda, Absent: Brinkman, Guilbault, Gee


Page 3 of 6

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT PTC/CBOSS Ad Hoc Committee Update Vice Chair Yeager, reported that the Committee met last week and the Board received a full update during their closed session earlier today. Business Plan Ad Hoc Committee Update Vice Chair Yeager, reported that the Committee did not meet. The Board had a robust discussion on Senate Bill (SB) 797, authorizing a one-eighth cent sales tax for Caltrain. The Board agreed to include this item to the next meeting in December to discuss timeframe and action the Board would need to move forward with the Measure. Public Comment Jeff Carter, Millbrae, said he understands this is a complex issue and Caltrain is suffering from lack of dedicated funding that could potentially drive riders away. He hopes the agency continues to discuss the bill sooner than later. Andy Chow, Redwood City, said the Board needs to take leadership and have a plan. He said Caltrain needs money but will the voters need better service. He said the Board needs to have a concrete plan in place now. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, said it would be helpful if the Board considers the budget implications for Caltrain and it would be a healthy conversation to have up front on how to balance the different options accordingly. Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said there are serious issues with the legality of the ballot language. There is no funding for operations. All three parties should get back on the same level and introduce a small amount of funding for operations from this tax measure. CITZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) REPORT Brian Shaw, Chair, CAC, said the Committee met in October. There was an introduction of new CAC members, Paul Escobar and Larry Klein representing Santa Clara County; all positions have been filled. The committee received a presentation on the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project, Hillsdale Relocation Project and Los Gatos Creek Bridge Project. He said there were public concerns on the center island platform design that could be a safety issue with High Speed Rail; the new relocated Hillsdale Station that is further away for some users and maintaining ADA access on 25th Street and 31st Streets. The next JPB CAC meeting is scheduled to meet on November 15. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jim Hartnett, Executive Director, said his written report is in the agenda packet. Mr. Hartnett noted that staff is working on enhancing fare enforcement. The Proof of Payment program has been in place since 2003. He also said the State Rail Plan has been issued.


Page 4 of 6

It will provide a vision for integrity intercity rail, High Speed Rail, and commuter passenger rail systems with reliable timed connections and multimodal transportation options. Mr. Hartnett introduced new Deputy General Manager/Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Carter Mau. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Quarterly Report Dave Couch, Project Delivery Director, provided a report on key highlights on electrification, infrastructure (test pile) and safety. Liria Larano, Deputy Chief, CalMod, reported on the schedule, risk management, budget and expenditures. She said staff continues with construction outreach and community meetings. Public Comment Aleta Joan Dupree, Oakland, said he is looking forward to the new equipment and supports the double doors. He said when the new electrification rolls out we will only have seventy-five percent of electrified fleet and need to keep in mind the acquisition of new mode of power. He understands the rational of keeping the older cars for their useful life, but can gain efficiencies and energy use by reducing the diesel fleet. Roland Lebrun, San Jose, asked what will happen to the Union Pacific single lanes once Caltrain energize the lines in Santa Clara County. He also said the correspondence packet had many general public comments that have now realized Caltrain has a massive capacity issue and the Stadler trains are not going to help. Shirley Johnson, San Francisco, Bikes Onboard, said her concern is the lack of transparency regarding train capacity and layout. She said in the correspondence packet there are concerns about how the public is being informed of the decisions. She had a few solutions, 1. Staff reviews the train capacity and layout 2. Four bike cars on the diesel train and 3. Longer Electrical multiple Unit (EMU) trains. She understands more funding is needed but if the funding does not come through, considering fewer but longer EMUs and more diesels in the mix fleet. She requested the next meeting agenda have an item to discuss train capacity and train layout. She also noted she supports the Bike Parking Management Plan.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (continued) Mr. Hartnett announced the retirement of Mark Simon, Chief of Staff. Mr. Simon’s last day will be in December 2017. ADOPTION OF THE CALTRAIN BICYCLE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Elizabeth Scanlon, Manager, Caltrain Planning, provide a two part report that included data collection, analysis on current facilities and customer research. She also reported on performance goals, measures, targets, management recommendations and implementation strategy. Next steps in implementation will be hiring a dedicated bike access manager, develop funding plan, secure funding for bike park system, and begin procurement process to contract with third party vendors to manage bike parking system.


Page 5 of 6

Director Gillian Gillett, said that a lot has changed since the 2016 online survey. She Suggested that bike access manager have transportation demand management. She suggested San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) assisting with writing the job description or be a part of the hiring panel. Director Gillett asked staff to include language on the first page of the Resolution “operation of an improved bike parking and access system”. Director Jeannie Bruins asked that staff include the environmental benefits of the Bike Parking Plan. She shared photos of the bike parking management. Director Bruins noted that the Bicycle Plan is an end to end solution and in Europe they have a policy in place that is no bikes on trains. Ms. Bruins asked that the resolution include the end to end solution. Public Comment Jeff Carter, Millbrae, said he would like staff to investigate the low usage of keyed bike lockers and would like more information on bicycle theft at stations. Vincent Demartel, Palo Alto, said hiring consultants does not resolve the issue of ownership. An efficient approach is to hire someone internally to be the leader and he said the survey is poorly designed; and the plan is good but need to spend the money differently. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, said she supports the Plan as it would assist with the off-board solutions on both ends; and reduce the risk of denying service to the customers. Aleta Dupree, Oakland, said he supports bike share but the bikes share programs and staff needs to work hard with these third parties with solutions so bikes could be used for their purpose and focus on carrying more people on their trains and secure their personal cargo as oppose to filling up trains with bikes. Roland Lebrun, said staff should not spend money on consultants and suggested Caltrain ask member agencies like SFMTA and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) to donate staff time to manage the bicycle program. Andy Chow, Redwood City, said the issue is people choose to bring bikes on board because it is less of a hassle than dealing with the individual station and payment. He said staff should consider centralized shared bike lockers and parking facilities. Approved with amendments to the language Approved by Resolution No. 2017-56 Motion/Second: Gillett, Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda Absent: Brinkman, Guilbault, Gee


Page 6 of 6

AWARD CONTRACT TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $5 MILLION FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM Director Bruins, asked if there are any Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goals. Julie Taylor, Director of Contracts and Procurement, said the three firms are SBE firms but not the highest rank Allied Universal Security. Ms. Taylor will follow up separately. Approved by Resolution No. 2017-57 Motion/Second: Bruins, Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda Absent: Brinkman, Guilbault Gee AUTHORIZE AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTS PROVIDING ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, PERMITTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Approved by Resolution No. 2017-58 Motion/Second: Bruins, Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda Absent: Brinkman, Gee AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH AT&T FOR RELOCATION OF ITS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE 25TH AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO FOR $ 3 MILLION Approved by Resolution No. 2017-59 Motion/Second: Bruins, Davis Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Gillett, Pine, Yeager, Zmuda Absent: Brinkman, Guilbault, Gee DATE/TIME/PLACE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING Thursday, December 7, 2017, 10:00 a.m. at San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070. Adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

of 2

AGENDA ITEM#5 (b) DECEMBER 7, 2017

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Derek Hansel

Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING

OCTOBER 31, 2017 ACTION Staff proposes the Committee recommend that the Board accept and enter into the record the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the month of October 2017. This staff report provides a brief discussion of significant items and trends on the attached Statement of Revenues and Expenses through October 31, 2017. The statement has been designed to follow the Agency wide line item rollup as included in the adopted budget. The columns have been designed to provide easy comparison of year to date prior to current actuals for the current fiscal year including dollar and percentage variances. In addition, the current forecast of Revenues and Expenses is compared to the Revised Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. SIGNIFICANCE Annual Forecast: The Forecast reflects Use of Reserves (page 1, line 13) of $7.2 million compared to $8.5 million in the revised budget. This is an improvement of $1.3 million and is driven by year to date savings versus budget in several expense line items including Facilities and Equipment Maintenance (page 1, line 32), Utilities (page 1, line 33), Professional Services (page 1, line 42), and Other Office Expenses and Services (page 1, line 44). Year to Date Revenues: As of October year-to-date actual, the Total revenues (page 1 of the Statement of Revenues and Expenses, line 17) are $0.9 million higher than the prior year. This is primarily driven by Farebox Revenue (page 1, line 1), Shuttles (page 1, line 3), Other Income (page 1, line 5) due to Union Pacific shared track and maintenance revenue, and Operating Grants (page 1, line 11). This is partially offset by JPB Member agency contributions (page 1, line 12) that were reduced due to a decrease in the annual insurance premiums.

of 2

Year to Date Expenses: As of October year-to-date actual, the Total Expense (page 1, line 50) is $2.2 million higher than the prior year-to-date actual. This is primarily due to higher TASI costs (page 1 line 23) and Wages & Benefits (Page 1 line 39) due to inclusion of unfunded CalPERS and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability (this expense, which was incurred in July, will not recur throughout the year). BUDGET IMPACT There are no budget amendments for the month of October 2017. Prepared By: Maria Pascual, Accountant 650-508-6214 Dapri Hong, FP&A

Ryan Hinchman, FP&A Manager

650-622-8055 650-508-7733

Statement of Revenue and ExpensePage 1 of 1

% OF YEAR ELAPSED 33.3%

PRIOR CURRENT % APPROVED % ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE BUDGET

REVENUEOPERATIONS:

1 Farebox Revenue 32,168,942$ 32,394,106$ 225,164$ 0.7% 98,427,507$ 98,427,507$ - 0.0% 1

2 Parking Revenue 1,868,930 1,951,412 82,482 4.4% 6,871,603 6,871,603 - 0.0% 2

3 Shuttles 635,359 779,704 144,345 22.7% 2,461,000 2,461,000 - 0.0% 3

4 Rental Income 614,627 685,929 71,302 11.6% 1,740,200 1,740,200 - 0.0% 4

5 Other Income 96,777 417,640 320,863 331.5% 993,345 993,345 - 0.0% 5

6 - 0.0% - 6

7 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 35,384,635 36,228,791 844,156 2.4% 110,493,655 110,493,655 - 0.0% 7

8 8

9 CONTRIBUTIONS: 9

10 AB434 Peninsula & TA Shuttle Funding 565,999 552,148 (13,850) -2.4% 1,796,300 1,796,300 - 0.0% 10

11 Operating Grants 1,225,862 1,421,883 196,021 16.0% 4,265,650 4,265,650 - 0.0% 11

12 JPB Member Agencies 11,011,998 10,888,107 (123,891) -1.1% 20,448,014 20,448,014 - 0.0% 12

13 Use of Reserves - 0.0% 8,490,979 7,158,701 (1,332,277) -15.7% 13

14 0.0% 14

15 TOTAL CONTRIBUTED REVENUE 12,803,859 12,862,138 58,280 0.5% 35,000,943 33,668,665 (1,332,277) -3.8% 15

16 16

17 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE 48,188,494 49,090,929 902,436 1.9% 145,494,598 144,162,320 (1,332,277) -0.9% 17

18 18

19 19

20 EXPENSE 20

21 21

22 OPERATING EXPENSE: 22

23 Rail Operator Service 23,658,521 25,249,005 1,590,484 6.7% 84,418,672 84,418,672 - 0.0% 23

24 Positive Train Control 291,138 - (291,138) -100.0% 900,000 900,000 - 0.0% 24

25 Security Services 1,804,002 1,849,988 45,986 2.5% 6,125,760 6,125,760 - 0.0% 25

26 Rail Operator Extra Work 63,070.00 16,463 (46,607) - - - - 0.0% 26

27 Contract Operating & Maintenance 25,816,731 27,115,456 1,298,725 -90.7% 91,444,432 91,444,432 - 0.0% 27

28 Shuttles Services 1,523,229 1,639,993 116,764 7.7% 5,161,000 5,161,000 - 0.0% 28

29 Fuel and Lubricants 2,907,593 3,088,809 181,216 6.2% 10,599,289 10,599,289 - 0.0% 29

30 Timetables and Tickets 33,844 38,003 4,159 12.3% 144,700 144,700 - 0.0% 30

31 Insurance 1,115,768 1,021,249 (94,519) -8.5% 6,108,156 6,108,156 - 0.0% 31

32 Facilities and Equipment Maint 584,537 608,024 23,487 4.0% 2,992,921 2,676,642 (316,278) -10.6% 32

33 Utilities 693,050 622,790 (70,260) -10.1% 1,964,783 1,890,993 (73,790) -3.8% 33

34 Maint & Services-Bldg & Other 392,008 430,869 38,861 9.9% 1,509,598 1,509,598 - 0.0% 34

35 35

36 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 33,066,760 34,565,193 1,498,432 4.5% 119,924,879 119,534,810 (390,068) -0.3% 36

37 37

38 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 38

39 Wages and Benefits 2,767,607 3,424,867 657,260 23.7% 9,730,217 9,730,217 - 0.0% 39

40 Managing Agency Admin OH Cost 2,044,290 1,960,411 (83,879) -4.1% 6,051,231 6,051,231 - 0.0% 40

41 Board of Directors 3,821 6,319 2,498 65.4% 14,600 14,600 - 0.0% 41

42 Professional Services 1,297,912 1,357,614 59,703 4.6% 5,254,964 4,796,867 (458,097) -8.7% 42

43 Communications and Marketing 42,300 37,123 (5,177) -12.2% 211,500 211,500 - 0.0% 43

44 Other Office Expenses and Services 636,538 654,481 17,944 2.8% 3,008,532 2,524,420 (484,112) -16.1% 44

45 45

46 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 6,792,468 7,440,815 648,347 9.5% 24,271,044 23,328,835 (942,209) -3.9% 46

48 Long Term Debt Expense 436,189 448,866 12,677 2.9% 1,298,675 1,298,675 - 0.0% 48

49 49

50 GRAND TOTAL EXPENSE 40,295,417$ 42,454,874$ 2,159,456$ 5.4% 145,494,598$ 144,162,320$ (1,332,277)$ -0.9% 50

51 51

52 NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 7,893,077$ 6,636,055$ (1,257,020)$ -15.9% (0) - (0) 52

"% OF YEAR ELAPSED" provides a general measure for evaluating overall progress against the annual budget. When comparing it to the amounts shown in the "% REV BUDGET" column, please note that individual line items reflect variations due to seasonal activities during the year.

11/28/17 10:09 AM

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARDSTATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE

Fiscal Year 2018October 2017

YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL


INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2017

TYPE OF SECURITY MATURITY INTEREST PURCHASE MARKETDATE RATE PRICE RATE

------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ------------------

Local Agency Investment Fund (Unrestricted) * Liquid Cash 1.143% 72,907 72,907

County Pool (Restricted) ** Liquid Cash 1.195% 1,000,000 1,000,000

County Pool (Unrestricted) ** Liquid Cash 1.195% 975,828 975,828

Other (Unrestricted) Liquid Cash 0.000% 47,333,074 47,333,074

Other (Restricted) *** Liquid Cash 0.200% 24,172,876 24,172,876

------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ------------------

73,554,685$ 73,554,685$

Accrued Earnings for October 2017 7,092.84$ Cumulative Earnings FY2018 29,077.92$

* The market value of Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is calculated annually and is derived from the fairvalue factor as reported by LAIF for quarter ending June 30th each year.

** As of October 2017, the total cost of the Total County Pool was $4,349,936,957 and the fair market value per San Mateo County Treasurer's Office was $4,348,157,907.

*** Prepaid Grant funds for Homeland Security, PTMISEA and LCTOP projects, and funds reserved for debt repayment.

The Portfolio and this Investment Report comply with the Investment Policy and the provisions of SB 564 (1995).

The Joint Powers Board has the ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017 JEFF GEE, CHAIR KEN YEAGER, VICE CHAIR JEANNIE BRUINS DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS GILLIAN GILLETTE ROSE GUILBAULT DAVE PINE CHERYL BRINKMAN MONIQUE ZMUDA JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

of 6

AGENDA ITEM # 5 (c) DECEMBER 7, 2017

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett

Executive Director FROM: Michelle Bouchard

Chief Operating Officer, Rail SUBJECT: KEY CALTRAIN PERFORMANCE STATISTICS – OCTOBER 2017 ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends that the Board receive the Performance Report for October 2017. SIGNIFICANCE Staff will provide monthly updates to Key Caltrain Performance Statistics, Caltrain Shuttle Ridership, Caltrain Promotions, Special Event Updates and Social Media Analytics. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. MONTHLY UPDATE In October 2017, Caltrain’s average weekday ridership (AWR) increased 5.1 percent to 61,834 from October 2016 AWR of 58,814. The total number of passengers who rode Caltrain in October 2017 increased 5.3 percent to 1,653,634 from 1,570,822 in October 2016. Staff continues to monitor ticket types sold in an effort to identify potential trends and impacts from the recent Caltrain Fare Changes. This month ticket sales for One Way tickets (up 21.8 percent), ED One Way tickets (up 16.3 percent), Monthly Passes (up 4.4 percent) and ED Monthly Passes (up 10.1 percent), increased from October 2016. These increases indicate previous 8-ride ticket users may be shifting to other Clipper products (One Way Tickets using Clipper Cash and Monthly Passes). Day Passes (down 15.7 percent) and ED Day Passes (down 14.9 percent) decreased from October 2016. With the elimination of the 8-ride ticket (purchases no longer available starting October 1 and expiration of 8-ride ticket usage on October 31), usage for both 8-ride tickets (down 91.5 percent) and ED 8-ride tickets (down 92.1 percent) decreased in October 2017. The number of Eligible Go Pass Employees continues to increase and is up 15.0 percent from October 2016. Farebox Revenue increased 2.6 percent from October 2016 from $7,721,781 to $7,920,966.

of 6

On-time performance (OTP) for October 2017 was 93.5 percent, compared to 95.2 percent OTP for October 2016. In October 2017 there were 640 minutes of delay due to mechanical issues compared to 920 minutes in October 2016. Looking at customer service statistics, there were 9.7 complaints per 100,000 passengers in October 2017 which increased from 8.5 in October 2016. Shuttle ridership for October 2017 is down 3.3 percent from October 2016. For the station shuttles, the Millbrae-Broadway shuttle averaged 179 daily riders. The Belmont-Hillsdale shuttle averaged 45 daily riders. The weekend Tamien-San Jose shuttle averaged 42 daily riders. When the Marguerite shuttle was removed, the impact to ridership was a decrease of 3.6 percent. Caltrain Promotions – October 2017 Fleet Week – The 36th Annual Fleet Week was held October 1 through October 9 and included naval ships, tours of vessels and the popular aerial shows from the world famous Blue Angels flight team. The gorgeous views from Pier 39 also featured live music, food, drinks and other fun attractions for spectators. Caltrain service was promoted thought internal organic social media platform, mentioned in the Caltrain Connection newsletter/GoCaltrain event page and news releases/blogs. Extra service was provided over the weekend to accommodate the large crowds. Event promoters and news outlets encouraged the use of public transportation to get to the event. Caltrain carried 18,952 event riders and regular riders over the weekend, a 7.0 percent increase over 2016 ridership. Cold Play Concert at Levi’s® Stadium – On Wednesday, October 4 at 7 p.m., Cold Play performed its Head Full of Dreams Tour at Levi’s Stadium. An additional post-concert train was added to accommodate the large late night crowds. Caltrain service was promoted through organic social media, Caltrain special events/GoCaltrain web posting and news release/blogs. Staff was also present at the Mountain View station to assist customers with directions and parking. Caltrain carried 2,061 riders to and from the concert. On-going promotions: 49ers at Levi’s® Stadium – The 49ers service promotion continues through the end of October. This year, marketing efforts will flight from September through December. To help promote the service, strategies include geo-targeted with retargeted sponsored Facebook click ads which will run one week leading up to each home game. Internal communications include news release/blogs, organic social media, and informational web page and station visual messages/conductor announcements. For the month of October, there was one game played against the Dallas Cowboys. Caltrain carried a total of 2,609 riders to and from the game. Total year-to-date ridership alighting and boarding at Mountain View was 9,283, a 20 percent decrease compared to the same number of games in 2016.

of 6

San Jose Sharks at SAP Center – The regular 2017/2018 San Jose Sharks season kicked off in October bringing fans to the SAP Center, just one block from the Diridon station. Caltrain service was promoted through paid sponsored Facebook click social media campaign running all season, organic social media, Caltrain’s website, listing in Caltrain Connection newsletter/GoCaltrain site and news release/blog. For the month of October, there were six home games played. Total year-to-date post-game Sharks fans and regular riders, boarding at San Jose Diridon station, was 2,691. Stanford Football – Stanford hosted one home game in October. This year Stanford will host the Big Game at Stanford Stadium on November 18. Selected trains will serve Stanford Stadium Station on game days. Caltrain service was promoted through sponsored geo-targeted with retargeted Facebook social media ads running one week leading up to each home game. Internal communication included organic social media, Caltrain’s website and news releases/blogs. Stanford will e-mail blast to season ticket holders before each home game and game day social media posts. Total riders alighting and boarding at Stanford Stadium in October was 1,063 fans, a 38 percent decrease compared to 2016 average ridership per game. Caltrain October 2017 Social Media Analytics – In October, Caltrain had three ongoing paid campaigns promoting Sharks, 49ers and Stanford Football service. Caltrain also promoted the Shuttle Program and service to various other events including Fleet Week and the Coldplay Concert. Staff also hosted several contests and gave out prizes (t-shirts). Along with the upcoming Caltrain Holiday Train, staff has produced a YouTube web series about how much effort goes into production. The series has several hundred views. Staff finished the month with the second annual Caltrain spooky story. Staff promoted the South San Francisco Station Construction public meeting, Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) recruitment, plus managed communication on several major service disruptions and many minor delays. Top 3 Social Media Reported Issues

1. Delays 2. Bike Car 3. Conductor Compliment

of 6

Prepared by: James Namba, Marketing Specialist 650.508.7924 Jeremy Lipps, Social Media Officer 650.622.7845 Catherine David, Principal Planner 650.508.6471

of 6

Table A

Graph A

FY2017 FY2018 % ChangeTotal Ridership 1,570,822 1,653,634 5.3%Average Weekday Ridership 58,814 61,834 5.1%Total Farebox Revenue $7,721,781 $7,920,996 2.6%On-time Performance 95.2% 93.5% -1.8%Average Caltrain Shuttle Ridership 9,828 9,589 -2.4%

FY2017 FY2018 % ChangeTotal Ridership 6,530,017 6,498,931 -0.5%Average Weekday Ridership 60,758 62,046 2.1%Total Farebox Revenue $32,168,941 $32,394,105 0.7%On-time Performance 94.0% 94.9% 1.0%Average Caltrain Shuttle Ridership 9,515 9,151 -3.8%

October 2017

Year to Date

of 6

Graph B

Graph C

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Com

plai

nts

per 1

00,0

00 P

asse

nger

s

CALTRAIN MONTHLY COMPLAINTS

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

AGENDA ITEM #5 (d) DECEMBER 7, 2017


STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Seamus Murphy Chief Communications Officer SUBJECT: STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board receives the attached memos. Staff will provide regular updates to the Board in accordance with Legislative Program. SIGNIFICANCE The 2017 Legislative Program establishes the principles that will guide the legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts. Based on those principles, staff coordinates closely with our Federal and State advocates on a wide variety of issues that are considered in Congress and the State legislature. The attached reports highlight the recent issues and actions that are relevant to the Board. Prepared By: Casey Fromson, Government and

Community Affairs Director

650-508-6493

800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564

Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Caltrain

Federal Update

November 2017

CONGRESS

FY 2018 Appropriations Update: On November 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee

released its final four spending bills: Interior-Environment, Financial Services, Department of

Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. The release of the bills was delayed due to a

number of reasons, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran’s (R-

MS) health issues, and ongoing debate regarding the inclusion of a provision to fund a border

wall in the Homeland Security bill. Several policy provisions are included in the bills that are

likely to become contentious, notably the exceeding of a statutory spending cap in the defense

bill, which would trigger across the board cuts to military programs to adhere to a 2011 deficit

law, unless Congress agrees to a deal raising spending caps.

The transportation funding in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill

includes:

$7.141 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a 2.4% decrease

from current funding

$50 million for Port Security Grants, a 50% decrease from current funding

$60 million for Transit and Rail Security Grants, a 40% decrease from current funding

The Senate Appropriations Committee has indicated that these bills will not undergo committee

markups but will be used as a starting point for year-end FY 2018 negotiations with the House.

Congressional leadership is trying to negotiate a two-year budget deal by the end of this month to

adjust the caps on annual discretionary appropriations. This is necessary before a FY 2018

omnibus appropriations bill can be written and considered. For non-defense appropriations

(which includes all transportation appropriations), Congress needs to increase the cap by almost

$3 billion for the Senate Appropriations Committee’s bills year. The House bills total $5 billion

less than the cap amount, but the House defense appropriations bills are $72.4 billion above the

FY 2018 cap on defense spending.

The House and Senate will unlikely finalize negotiations before government funding expires on

December 8, as the Senate also has ongoing work on tax reform. Another continuing resolution

(CR) will be needed to allow the Senate and House additional time to work on an omnibus

spending package for all 12 appropriations bills.

http://www.hklaw.com/

2 #54462528_v1

House and Senate Move on Tax Reform Legislation: On November 16, the House passed H.R.1,

the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, by a 227-205 party line vote. The House Rules Committee did not

allow any amendments to be considered to the bill. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the 13

Republicans who opposed the bill were from high-tax states (except for Rep. Walter Jones (R-

NC): Reps. Donovan (NY), Faso (NY), Frelinghuysen (NJ), Issa (CA), Jones (NC), King (NY),

Lance (NJ), LoBiondo (NJ), McClintock (CA), Rohrabacher (CA), Smith (NJ), Stefanik (NY),

and Zeldin (NY). The legislation would enact $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for businesses and

individuals, despite concerns from Democrats and several Republican members.

On November 16, the Senate Finance Committee advanced the its tax reform bill, by a 14-12

party line vote. The Senate Budget Committee will consider the legislation on November 28; if

passed out of committee, the Senate will begin floor debate on November 29 and hope to pass

the bill by the end of the week of November 27. Lawmakers will need to reconcile differences

between the two bills prior to passing a final legislative package, which House Speaker Paul

Ryan (R-WI) has said will occur before Christmas.

Though both bills would roughly double the standard deduction, House and Senate bills have

numerous differences. The House bill would reduce the corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 20

percent, and decrease the number of brackets from seven to four, while the Senate retains the

original number; but the Senate reduces the top bracket from 39 percent to 38.5 percent, and the

top bracket remains the same in the House plan. Moreover, the House bill increases the Child

Tax Credit to $1,600 per child, from the previous $1,000, while the Senate bill increases the

Child Tax Credit to $2,000 per child. The House plan also seeks to fully repeal the estate tax,

while the Senate plan does not.

More controversial, the House and Senate bills eliminate or reduce several deductions. For

example, the House bill limits the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to property taxes and

caps it at $10,000, while the Senate bill eliminates the SALT deduction entirely. These

proposals have received intense criticism from Democrats and Republican members from high-

tax states, and SALT is likely to be an obstacle during conference committee, presuming the

Senate can pass its tax reform bill. Republican members from states such as New York, New

Jersey, and California have made their opposition to the bill known. However, House Ways and

Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) has said that there are still areas of improvement within

the bill. Notably, the Senate bill preserves private activity bonds (PABs), though the House bill

does not. The repeal of PABs in the House bill has been criticized by local governments and

transportation authorities, who have sent letters to committees of jurisdiction, urging that PABs

be included in final legislation.

Another obstacle to final passage is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual

mandate in the Senate bill. This provision has raised concern among Democrats and moderate

Republicans that this proposal—which was not included in the House bill—would simply disrupt

the already vulnerable insurance market. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) stated his opposition on

November 15, and support from members such as Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and John McCain

(R-AZ) are unknown at this point, miring the bill’s passage in uncertainty.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll637.xml

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.20.17%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act.pdf

3 #54462528_v1

An analysis from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) found that the Senate bill

would, by 2021, increase taxes for those earning $10,000 to $30,000, and in 2027, after

individual tax cuts have expired, those earning $75,000 or less would see higher taxes. After this

analysis was released on November 16, Democratic Senators reiterated their stance that the tax

cut would only provide relief to high-earners.

The transportation provisions in the Senate tax bill include:

Section 11048: Prevents bicyclists from excluding any bike commute money provided

by employers from their income as a fringe benefit from 2018 through 2025 (the House

bill does not include this provision)

Section 13304(c): Repeals the deductibility for employers of all transportation fringe

benefits (the House bill includes this provision)

Section 13532: Prohibits new “advance refunding” tax exempt municipal bonds (the

House bill includes this provision)

Section 13822: Clarifies that provision of aircraft management services is not considered

to be provision of air transportation for purposes of the 7.5 percent ticket tax and the

passenger segment fee (the House bill does not include this provision)

Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not repeal tax-exempt private activity bonds after

2017 or ends the tax credit for purchase of plug-in electric vehicles.

GOP Members Discuss Infrastructure Plan: On November 16, several Republican members on

the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee gathered to discuss a plan for the

Administration’s infrastructure proposal. Members discussed concerns about leveraging the

$200 billion in public funds outlined in the Administration’s infrastructure principles. They also

discussed other ideas for financing an infrastructure package, including truck-only toll roads and

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans. Rep. Daniel Webster

(R-FL) said that proposals to raise the gas tax as a source of revenue were not addressed during

the meeting. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) said that while the members still do not have clear

definition on specific elements, they are eager to work with the President on a package after

Congress passes tax reform. Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) said that while conversations between

the Administration and himself and Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) are ongoing, it is not yet clear

whether the package will be $1 trillion.

ADMINISTRATION

GAO Monitoring DOT Grant Recipients: In a letter sent on November 3, Republicans and

Democrats from the House Transportation Committee have asked the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) selection of

highway and freight INFRA (formerly known as FASTLANE) grant recipients, following a

GAO report that found DOT was not giving “clear rationale” for selecting certain projects, nor

was it adequately documenting the selection process. GAO said it was not able to find how the

department selected projects that were awarded grants in 2016, and said the Administration must

provide insight into the process. Additionally, GAO recommends that DOT inform applicants

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-38

4 #54462528_v1

how their projects ranked and rated once DOT awards the funding, and that DOT documents the

processes selection processes. Modal requests for INFRA includes:

White House Seeks Third Disaster Relief Package: On November 17, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) requested a $44 billion disaster aid package from Congress on November 17,

to assist with recovery efforts in states affected by hurricanes. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has

said the package will be considered in December after the Senate returns from recess and

finishes work on the tax bill. The request may be added to either a CR or in a FY 2018 omnibus

appropriations package.

For transportation, the request includes $71.887 million for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), $415.5 million for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief

program, $198,541,500 for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Emergency Relief

program, and $10 million for the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Notably, the package is

significantly less than California, Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico have requested in assistance.

The Administration’s proposal asks Congress to consider offsets for the spending request.

Included in the list of offsets is the elimination of $729.8 million from the Army Corps of

Engineers’ FY 2018 budget and a $1 billion rescission of highway contract authority balances

held by for states DOTs. The rescission of highway contract authority is concerning to many

because of a mandatory $7.6 billion rescission at the end of FY 2020 that was enacted in the

FAST Act.

According to the FHWA, as of September 30, 2017 (the end of the fiscal year), states held

$8.222 billion in unobligated balances of highway contract authority that will be subject to the

FAST Act rescission scheduled for July 2020. Over 40 percent of the unobligated balance was

focused in transportation enhancements and alternatives, metropolitan planning, and the CMAQ

programs. This is despite the fact that those programs are less than nine percent of total new

formula funding.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/Letters/fy_2018_hurricanes_supp_111717.pdf

5 #54462528_v1

This offset could have the effect of cutting into real dollars at the end of FY 2020. The state of

California has $611,479,947.13 in unobligated contract authority. The $1 billion rescission

would be a rescission of $82,106,637.99.

November 27, 2017 TO: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Members FROM: Mike Robson and Trent Smith, Edelstein Gilbert Robson & Smith, LLC Joshua W. Shaw and Matt Robinson, Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – NOVEMBER 2017 _______________________________________________________________________ The Legislature is in the middle of its Fall Recess and will return to Session on January 4, 2018 to commence the second year of the two-year session. Timing in the second year is a little more compressed than in the first year as it is an election year and there is a need to be done in early September to commence campaigning. In 2018, the bill introduction deadline is February 16 and final adjournment is August 31. 2017 was a very productive year in terms of the legislative achievements in transportation, housing, and climate change. We do not expect a lot of new legislative activity in these issue areas. Instead, we expect activity to be focused on the 2018 ballot and whether any of the proposed referendums to overturn the legislatively-approved gas tax increase will qualify for the ballot. Currently, the Republican gubernatorial candidates and all of the targeted Republican Congressional members are backing a repeal of the gas tax and are hitching their campaigns to this effort. Repeal of the gas tax polls favorably with voters and if a ballot measure were to succeed, it could have negative repercussions to long-term transportation infrastructure needs. This issue evolves on a daily basis and we will keep the Joint Powers Board aware of developments. The other major 2018 ballot attention will be the race for Governor. The leading contenders on the Democratic side are Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Treasurer John Chiang, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin. All the candidates have similar views on state spending and infrastructure. We do expect, however, that differences of opinion on long-term public funding of high speed rail will surface during the campaign. Candidate Villaraigosa has already accused the front-runner Newsom of flip-flopping on whether he supports or opposes funding of high speed rail. How this plays out in the campaign and its implications for the blended project with Caltrain will be something to keep an eye on. There should be no turnover in the Caltrain legislative delegation in the 2017 election cycle. The voter-approved change in term limits has created stability and the potential for long-term service for legislators. Senators Jim Beall and Jerry Hill are the closest to term limits and will serve until 2020.

AGENDA ITEM # 5 (e) DECEMBER 7, 2017


TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Michelle Bouchard Chief Operating Officer, Rail SUBJECT: CAPITAL PROJECTS QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT –

1st QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2018 The Report will be provided under separate cover prior to the December 7, 2017 Board meeting.

of 3

AGENDA ITEM #5 (f) DECEMBER 07, 2017


STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Seamus Murphy Chief Communications Officer SUBJECT: 2017 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY KEY FINDINGS ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends that the Board receive the 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey Key Findings Summary Report. The full report is available online at http://www.caltrain.com/surveys . SIGNIFICANCE In June 2017, Caltrain conducted its annual Customer Satisfaction Survey to evaluate services provided by the agency’s contract operator, Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI). The customer satisfaction ratings are one of the performance measurements used to determine a portion of the contractor’s compensation. The survey also presents an opportunity to assess customer needs and provides Caltrain customers with a venue to submit comments. Caltrain selects the survey period to maximize feedback from frequent commuters. The timeframe is typically selected to avoid days with special events. Key findings from the study include ratings of eighteen overall services at the stations and onboard characteristics. Also included are questions about fare type, station boardings and alightings, sources of service service-related communications, and the area in which riders think Caltrain has most improved upon this year. The majority of riders (80 percent) report that they are “somewhat” or “very satisfied,” with their overall experience, an increase of one percent over the 2016 survey. Using a scale of 1-5, with 1 meaning “very dissatisfied” and 5 meaning “very satisfied”, Caltrain customers expressed improved satisfaction in a number of specific areas including:

• Overall satisfaction (from 4.01. to 4.05), • Access to information about delays at stations (3.48 to 3.51), • On-time arrival at your destination (4.03 to 4.07), • Courtesy of conductors (4.36 to 4.37), • Professional appearance of conductors (4.45 to 4.51),

http://www.caltrain.com/surveys

of 3

• Availability of printed materials onboard (4.15 to 4.21). • Posted information at stations (3.87 to 3.93).

Declines in ratings included ease of use of ticket machines (3.82 to 3.73) and cleanliness of train interiors (3.88 to 3.82). The results of questions about fare type, station boardings and alightings, and sources of service-related communications include:

• The Monthly Pass is used by more than one third of respondents (35 percent), while one-fifth used a Go Pass (20 percent), followed by Clipper Cash value (16 percent).

• San Francisco, Mountain View, San Jose Diridon, and Palo Alto were the stations most commonly cited by riders for both boardings and alightings from trains.

• The top sources of where riders get their service disruption communications are station information boards/in-station announcements (41 percent), conductor/station agent or other Caltrain staff (37 percent) and Twitter

(30 percent). Respondents were asked to share an area in which Caltrain has most improved upon this year. The top three areas citied were:

1. Reliability/consistency/fewer accidents or delays – made by 19 percent of all respondents.

2. Schedule – made by 12 percent of all respondents. 3. Better communication about delays/information availability – made by 7

percent of all respondents. The survey also provided respondents with the opportunity to submit comments. 31percent of respondents provided a comment of some type. The top three themes were:

1. Schedules and frequency – made by 19 percent of all respondents; 2. Car features and amenities – made by 11percent of respondents; 3. Delay information/service announcements/updates – made by 10 percent of all

respondents; The comments reveal that riders are more concerned about frequent service and a schedule that suits their needs than they are about the amenities provided by Caltrain. Almost twice as many comments were made by respondents relating to frequency and schedule compared to car features and amenities or delay information. During the field survey time period, Caltrain was in the midst of seeking input on fare changes to be implemented later in 2017. Compared with the 2016 survey, the share of comments relating to fare policy increased in 2017, and was one of the five most commonly raised topics. BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact on the budget.

of 3

BACKGROUND The survey was conducted through the use of on-call survey contractor Corey, Canapary & Galanis (CC&G). CC&G distributed and collected paper surveys in English and Spanish onboard, randomly selecting cars to represent overall Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) ridership. A total of 44 weekday and weekend trains were targeted with a 71 percent response rate, resulting in 3,157 completed surveys. The survey has a system-wide margin of error of +/- 1.65 percent with a 95 percent confidence level. Customer Satisfaction ratings have been collected since 1998. The overall onboard and at station ratings are at the highest level since 2014. The ratings for professional appearance and courtesy of conductors have steadily increased over the years, and in 2017 were at their highest levels. The Survey findings were presented to the Caltrain Citizen’s Advisory Committee on November 15. They are also available on the Caltrain website.

Next Steps In 2015 Caltrain developed a Customer Experience Task Force to guide implementation of service improvements and amenities to help enhance the rider experience. The Task Force is looking into the results to determine areas of improvement to focus on. Survey results will also be used to determine payment obligations as specified in the agency’s rail operations contract with TASI. Prepared By: Julian Jest, Market Research Analyst 650.508.6245

CALTRAIN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY JUNE 2017

SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared by

COREY, CANAPARY & GALANIS RESEARCH 447 Sutter Street – Penthouse North San Francisco, CA 94108

Caltrain Customer Satisfaction Survey – June 2017 | Summary Report

2

INTRODUCTION This report details the findings of an onboard survey of Caltrain riders for the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey. The fieldwork on this study was conducted in June 2017. In total, 3,625 surveys were distributed, and 3,157 surveys were conducted and completed. Of the 3,157 completed surveys, 3,151 were English language surveys and 6 were Spanish language surveys. Key objectives of the survey include:

Reporting trip characteristics, such as peak/off-peak/Saturday use, as well as rider longevity/frequency.

Ratings of 18 specific service characteristics, including six various aspects of Caltrain stations, 11 aspects of onboard service, and one overall assessment of the entire Caltrain experience; and

Rider evaluation of service improvement priorities. Since the previous survey, Caltrain updated the timetable schedule in April to improve service reliability for customers, and also scheduled a weekend timetable change for July to accommodate construction projects for electrification which will modify headways from 60 minutes to 90 minutes. During the field survey time period, Caltrain was in the midst of seeking input on fare changes to be implemented later in 2017. This report includes the following key sections: Executive Overview, Charts/Key Findings and Detailed Results. The Appendix of this report includes a copy of the questionnaire, interviewer training instructions, information on routes sampled, and data on statistical significance.

Questions regarding this project may be directed to: Julian Jest, Caltrain, 650.508.6245.

Methodology and Response Rate The survey was conducted as an onboard self-administered questionnaire distributed to Caltrain riders. Surveyors boarded pre-selected trains, and attempted to distribute questionnaires to all passengers on a pre-selected car of the assigned train. Completed surveys were collected by these surveyors who stayed onboard during the train route.

Specific steps were taken to ensure the highest possible response rate. This included using professional, experienced onboard surveyors on the project, making the questionnaire available in English and Spanish, and providing a business reply mail-back option for persons who did not have time to complete the survey onboard.


3

The overall response rate (71%) was calculated by dividing the total number of completes, (3,157) by all eligible passengers riding on the sampled trains (4,457). Notes:

- “All eligible passengers” includes everyone except: children age 13 and younger, riders who had already participated, and passengers who identified themselves as employees of Caltrain.

- Please see the appendix for additional details on distribution procedures and response rate information.

Field interviewing on this project was conducted Thursday, June 1, 2017; Saturday, June 3, 2017; Tuesday-Thursday, June 6-8, 2017; Thursday, June 15, 2017; and Tuesday, June 20, 2017. The weekday shifts were allocated to allow for surveying during morning and afternoon peak periods, as well as off-peak periods. Saturday trains were also surveyed at various times of the day. Atypical days, such as Giants home game days, were avoided. Surveyors returned completed questionnaires to Corey, Canapary & Galanis’ office following the completion of the fieldwork. Data entry, editing, and coding were done in-house by Corey, Canapary & Galanis, once the questionnaires were returned. Sampling In total, 3,157 completed surveys were conducted. This total equates to a system-wide margin of error of +/- 1.65% (at the 95% confidence level). The sampling on the study was designed to achieve a cross section of riders utilizing trains at various times of the day. For this study, we sampled a total of 36 weekday trains and eight Saturday trains. Of the 36 weekday trains surveyed, 10 were local trains, eight were bullet trains, and 18 were limited trains. Of the eight Saturday trains surveyed, six were local trains and two were bullet trains. For each train sampled, a specific car was selected, and we attempted to survey every passenger in the selected car. Statistically Significant Differences As was mentioned previously, for the total number of respondents (n =3,157) who participated in the survey, the margin of error is +/- 1.65% at the 95% confidence level. The margins of error for some key sub-groups shown in this report are:

- Weekday peak (n = 2,118). +/- 2.05% at the 95% confidence level; - Weekday off-peak (n =545). +/- 4.16% at the 95% confidence level; - Saturday (n = 494). +/- 4.37% at the 95% confidence level.


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overall Satisfaction (station and onboard experience)

The average (mean) score rose from 4.01 in 2016 to 4.05 in 2017. This is a statistically significantincrease.

80% of riders were somewhat or very satisfied with their overall Caltrain experience, and 3% werevery or somewhat dissatisfied.

Station Specific Ratings

Overall, Caltrain riders rated stations 3.97 – a slight (but not statistically significant) increase from3.94 in 2016.

The only decrease among station ratings was “Ease of use of ticket machines”, which droppedfrom 3.82 in 2016 to 3.73 in 2017. This is a statistically significant decrease.

All other station ratings increased; however, there was only one statistically significant increaseamong station attributes. “Posted information on info boards” rose from 3.87 in 2016 to 3.93 in2017.

Onboard Ratings

The overall onboard rating increased from 4.08 in 2016 to 4.11 in 2017; however, this is notstatistically significant.

While three onboard ratings declined, only one of these was statistically significant. “Cleanlinessof train interiors” dropped from 3.88 in 2016 to 3.82 in 2017.

Two onboard attributes saw ratings increases which are statistically significant. “Availability ofprinted materials” rose from 4.15 in 2016 to 4.21 in 2017; in addition, “Professional appearanceof conductors” rose from 4.45 in 2016 to 4.51 in 2017.

Fare Payment More than one third (35%) of respondents paid for their trip with a Caltrain Monthly pass, while 20% paid with a Go Pass, and 16% paid using Clipper cash value. Nearly one fourth – 24% - paid for their trip using a One-way ticket or Day Pass.

Improvements in the Past Year When asked about what has improved on Caltrain in the past year, 19% of respondents indicated improvements in reliability, consistency, and/or fewer delays and accidents, while 12% cited improvements in the schedule. However, the top response, from 20% of respondents, was that they had not been riding Caltrain long enough to provide an answer.

Boarding and Exit Stations Four stations – San Francisco, Mountain View, San Jose-Diridon, and Palo Alto – were the stations most commonly cited by riders for both boarding and exiting trains.

Full report: www.caltrain.com/surveys

of 2 13944005.1

AGENDA ITEM #5 (g)

DECEMBER 7, 2017


TO: Joint Powers Board

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director

FROM: Derek Hansel Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES

ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board:

1. Award a contract to Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. (Wells Fargo), San Francisco, CA, or its anticipated successor firm, USI Insurance Services (USI), to provide insurance brokerage services for a total estimated cost of $413,760, composed of a total firm-fixed price of $288,760 for base brokerage services and a not-to-exceed amount of $125,000 for additional on-call brokerage services, in accordance with the fixed hourly rates set forth in the proposal. The contract is for a five-year term.

2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with Wells Fargo, or USI, in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

SIGNIFICANCE Award of this contract will provide the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) with the services of a qualified and experienced insurance brokerage firm that is well-versed in the public transit property and casualty insurance market, including comprehensive risk management services. The contract will ensure continued, uninterrupted liability and property coverage at competitive, world-market rates including but not limited to railroad and general liability, public officials, environmental liability, crime and terrorism coverage.

BUDGET IMPACT Funds to support the award of this contract are included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Budget and will be included in future adopted operating budgets.

BACKGROUND The JPB, San Mateo County Transit District, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, collectively referred to as “Agencies,” jointly issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for insurance brokerage services. Staff advertised the RFP in a newspaper of general circulation and on the JPB’s procurement website. Standard language setting forth the Agencies’ policy regarding Small Business Enterprises (SBEs) was included in the solicitation documents.

of 2 13944005.1

Staff received three proposals, none of which were from SBE firms. This RFP included up to 5 preference points (out of a possible 105 points) for proposals that included the utilization of SBEs. One firm, Alliant Insurance Services, received the maximum five (5) preference points for its proposed utilization of an SBE subcontractor for a portion of the proposed services. Neither of the other two proposers claimed SBE utilization in their proposals. The following firms submitted proposals:

1. Alliant Insurance Services, San Francisco, CA 2. AON Risk Insurance Services West, Inc., San Francisco, CA 3. Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc., San Francisco, CA

An Evaluation Committee (Committee) composed of qualified staff reviewed and scored all proposals according to the following weighted criteria:

• Approach to Scope of Services 0 – 25 points • Company Qualifications, Experience and References 0 – 25 points • Qualifications & Experience of Management Team

and Key Personnel 0 – 30 points • Small Business Enterprise Preference 0 – 5 points • Cost Proposal 0 – 20 points

After review, evaluation, and scoring, only one firm (Wells Fargo) was found to be in the competitive range and determined to be the highest ranked proposer. The Committee deemed Wells Fargo’s approach to services to be thorough and comprehensive. The proposal provided detailed information and recommendations for types of insurance coverages for each Agency, and was found to be responsive to the RFP’s requirements. An analysis of Wells Fargo’s final cost proposal was conducted and staff determined the pricing to be fair and reasonable. The JPB’s incumbent vendor is Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo previously was awarded a five-year contract for a firm-fixed price of $465,000 and additional on-call insurance brokerage services at a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000. Wells Fargo’s favorable pricing for this proposed contract, which the firm offered in order to be competitive with other proposers, represents a significant savings for the JPB in comparison to the pricing of the existing contract. The proposal informed the Agencies that Wells Fargo will join USI in the fourth quarter of 2017. Upon close of the sale and regulatory approvals, the newly combined firm will operate as USI Insurance Services, LLC. Contract Officer: Mario Giacobbe 650.622.8077 Project Manager: Marshall Rush, Claims Administrator 650.508.7742

of 2

13944010.1

RESOLUTION NO. 2017 –

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AWARDING A CONTRACT TO WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA, INC.

FOR INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $413,760 FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM

WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the San Mateo County

Transit District, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (collectively, "Agencies")

jointly solicited competitive proposals for Insurance Brokerage Services; and

WHEREAS, in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP), three firms submitted

proposals; and

WHEREAS, an Evaluation Committee composed of qualified staff reviewed and

scored the proposals in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of the initial evaluation and scoring process, only one

firm, Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. (Wells Fargo) of San Francisco, California, was

found to be in the competitive range and was determined to be the highest ranked

proposer; and

WHEREAS, staff and Legal Counsel have reviewed the Wells Fargo proposal and

found it responsive to the JPB’s requirements and solicitation documents; and

WHEREAS, the Wells Fargo proposal informed the Agencies that Wells Fargo will join

with USI Insurance Services (USI) in the fourth quarter of 2017, and upon close of the sale

and regulatory approvals, the newly combined firms will operate as USI; and

WHEREAS, this proposed contract will be entered with the then-current legal entity,

which will either be Wells Fargo or USI, depending on the status of the corporate transition

discussed above at that time; and

of 2

13944010.1

WHEREAS, Staff Coordinating Council recommends, and the Executive Director

concurs, that a five-year contract for insurance brokerage services be awarded to Wells

Fargo, or USI, for a total estimated cost of $413,760, composed of a total firm-fixed price of

$288,760 for base brokerage services and a not-to–exceed amount of $125,000 for

additional on-call services in accordance with the fixed hourly rates set forth in the

proposal.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Peninsula Corridor

Joint Powers Board awards a contract to Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc., or USI

Insurance Services, to provide Insurance Brokerage Services for a five-year term at a total

estimated cost of $413,760 inclusive of all costs and expenses, based on the estimated

requirements of the JPB and the rates submitted by Wells Fargo for these services; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee is authorized to

execute a contract on behalf of the JPB with Wells Fargo, or USI, in full conformity with the

terms and conditions of the solicitation documents.

Regularly passed and adopted this 7th day of December, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Chair, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

of 2 13951945.2

AGENDA ITEM # 5 (h) DECEMBER 7, 2017


STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: April Chan Chief Officer, Planning, Grants, and Transportation Authority SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE STATE RAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDS ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to:

1. Affirm that the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements of the State Rail Assistance (SRA) program, as set forth in the certification and assurances and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines; and

2. Approve an application for $2 million in SRA funds for ongoing capital improvement projects, including vehicle rehabilitation, track/structure rehabilitation and station rehabilitation, and an application for $500,000 to implement bike parking improvements in support of the recently adopted Caltrain Bicycle Parking Management Plan; and

3. Execute and file the certifications and assurances and authorized agent form as well as any amendments, and furnish any additional information as Caltrans may require of recipients of SRA funds; and

SIGNIFICANCE The SRA is a new formula program funded through Senate Bill (SB)1 revenues. The program is administered by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and funding is available for commuter and intercity rail agencies across the state. CalSTA requires recipients to execute Certifications and Assurances and an Authorized Agent form prior to receiving an allocation. The Certifications and Assurances contain general conditions of the SRA program and other standard requirements for State-funded projects. Additionally, the Board must approve the nomination of projects for the funding. Staff recommends applying for $2 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 SRA funds for ongoing state of good repair projects including vehicle rehabilitation, track/structure rehabilitation and station rehabilitation.

of 2 13951945.2

Staff also recommends applying for $500,000 to implement bike parking improvements in support of the recently adopted Caltrain Bicycle Parking Management Plan. BUDGET IMPACT CalSTA estimates the JPB will receive $2.5 million in FY2018. A separate action will be brought to the Board to budget the FY2018 funds once the applications for funding have been approved by CalSTA. BACKGROUND

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Chapter 5, Statues of 2017), signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017, includes the ten year SRA program to provide over $440 million to commuter and intercity rail agencies for operating and capital needs. Prepared By: Peter Skinner, Manager, Grants and Fund

Programming 650.622.7818

of 2 13951946.2


BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF STATE RAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDS WHEREAS, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1

(Chapter 5, Statues of 2017), signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017, includes a

program that will provide additional revenues for transit infrastructure repair and service

improvements; and

WHEREAS, SB 1 established the State Rail Assistance (SRA) program to provide

operating and capital funds to rail agencies across the state; and

WHEREAS, SB1 named the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) as the

administrative agency for SRA funds; and

WHEREAS, CalSTA has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and

distributing SRA funds to eligible project sponsors; and

WHEREAS, these guidelines requires that recipient agencies of SRA funds execute

Certifications and Assurances and an Authorized Agent form prior to receiving an

allocation; and

WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) is an eligible project

sponsor and may receive state funding from State Rail Assistance (SRA) now or

sometime in the future for transit projects; and

WHEREAS, the JPB wishes to implement the SRA project(s) listed below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Executive Director, or his designee, is

authorized to:

1. Affirm that the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board agrees to comply with all

conditions and requirements of the SRA Program as set forth in the certification

and assurances and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines, and

2. Submit applications to CalSTA for FY 2017-18 SRA funds for the following projects:

• Project Name: Caltrain Capital Improvement Program

o Amount of SRA funds requested: $2,000,000

of 2 13951946.2

o Project Description: This project makes capital investments in Caltrain

rolling stock and infrastructure to ensure efficient, safe and reliable

service. Funds will be directed toward needs identified in Caltrain’s

adopted FY18 Capital Budget including, but not limited, to investments

in revenue vehicles, track, structures, systems and stations.

• Project Name: Caltrain Bicycle Parking Program

o Amount of SRA funds requested: $500,000

o Project Description: This project implements elements of the Caltrain

Bicycle Parking Management Plan including, but not limited to, the

installation of new electronic bicycle lockers at Caltrain stations; and

3. Execute and file the Certifications and Assurances and an Authorized Agent

form as well as any amendments, and furnish any additional information as

CalSTA may require of recipients of SRA funds.

Regularly passed and adopted this 7th day of December, 2017 by the

following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

13951697.2

AGENDA ITEM #5 (i) DECEMBER 7, 2017


TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: April Chan Chief Officer, Planning, Grants, and Transportation Authority

SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM FUNDS

ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to:

1. Affirm that the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements of the State Transit Assistance (STA) and State of Good Repair Program (SGR), as set forth in the certification and assurances and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines, and

2. Execute and file the certifications and assurances and authorized agent form as well as any amendments, or furnish any additional information as Caltrans may require of recipients of SGR funds.

SIGNIFICANCE This is a new formula program funded through Senate Bill (SB)1 revenues, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires that recipient agencies of SGR funds to execute Certifications and Assurances and an Authorized Agent form prior to receiving the funding. The Certifications and Assurances contain general conditions of the SGR program, as well as some additional cost principles and record retention requirements that are standard for other State-funded projects. The Certifications and Assurances need to be submitted only once, and will be valid for the remainder of the ten year SGR program.

BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact from this action. SGR funded projects have been included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Capital Budget in the amount of $1,524,127. Funds for subsequent years will be considered as part of annual budget deliberations.

BACKGROUND The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Chapter 5, Statues of 2017), signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017, will provide additional revenues for investment in public transit state of good repair projects. The SGR program provides funding of approximately $105 million annually for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation and capital projects statewide.

Prepared By: Rebecca Arthur, Senior Grants Analyst 650.508.6368

of 2 13951751.2



* * *

AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM

FUNDS

WHEREAS, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1

(Chapter 5, Statues of 2017), signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017, includes a

program that will provide additional revenues for transit infrastructure repair and service

improvements; and

WHEREAS, this investment in public transit will be referred to as the State Transit

Assistance (STA) State of Good Repair (SGR) program, and

WHEREAS, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 named the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as the administrative agency for SGR funds;

and

WHEREAS, Caltrans has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering

and distributing SGR funds to eligible project sponsors; and

WHEREAS, these guidelines require that recipient agencies of SGR funds execute

Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent form prior to receiving an

allocation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Executive Director, or his designee, is

authorized to:

1. Affirm that the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) agrees to

comply with all conditions and requirements of the State Transit Assistance State of

of 2 13951751.2

Good Repair Program as set forth in the certification and assurances and applicable

statutes, regulations and guidelines, and

2. Execute and file the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent

form as well as any amendments, or furnish any additional information as Caltrans may

require of recipients of SGR funds.


AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

AGENDA ITEM # 6 (b) DECEMBER 7, 2017


TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Seamus Murphy Chief Communications Officer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATIONS FOR A POTENTIAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX BALLOT

MEASURE The Report will be provided under separate cover prior to the December 7, 2017 Board meeting.

Memorandum

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 1250 San Carlos Ave. – P.O. Box 3006

San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 650.508.6269

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017 JEFF GEE, CHAIR KEN YEAGER, VICE CHAIR JEANNIE BRUINS DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS GILLIAN GILLETTE ROSE GUILBAULT DAVE PINE CHERYL BRINKMAN MONIQUE ZMUDA JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Date: November 28, 2017 To: Board of Directors From: Jim Hartnett, Executive Director Subject: December 7, 2017 JPB Board Meeting Executive Director’s Report

1. On-time Performance –

• Through November 21: The preliminary November 2017 OTP was 94.7% compared to 92.5% for November 2016.

• October: The October 2017 OTP was 93.5% compared to 95.2 % for

October 2016.

o Trespasser Strikes – There were two trespasser strikes on October 12 and 19, both resulting in a fatality.

2. South San Francisco Groundbreaking – On Monday, November 6, 2017 at

11:00 a.m. Caltrain, in cooperation with the City of South San Francisco hosted a celebratory event to break ground on the South San Francisco Station Improvement Project. Speakers included State Senator - Jerry Hill, Redwood City Council Member and Caltrain Board Chair - Jeff Gee, Assembly Member - Kevin Mullin, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and Caltrain Board Member - Dave Pine, South San Francisco Mayor - Pradeep Gupta and South San Francisco Council Member and San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Member - Karyl Matsumoto.

3. CAC Meeting – The Citizens Advisory Committee met on Wednesday,

November 15, in San Carlos. Julian Jest, Market Research Specialist, presented the 2017 Caltrain Customer Satisfaction Survey Key Findings. Jenny Lee, Legal Office Specialist - Transit Police, presented the new Fare Enforcement Program. Joe Navarro, Director - Rail Operations, provided

Jim Hartnett November 28, 2017 Page 2

2

the Staff Report. The next CAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, in San Carlos.

4. BAC Meeting – The Bicycle Advisory Committee met on Thursday, November

16, in San Carlos. Lori Low, Public Affairs Specialist, presented the CalMod update and also provided the Staff Report. Ben Burns, Manager - Rail Operations, provided a presentation on On-time Performance and Delay Mitigation. The next BAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 18, in San Carlos.

5. Special Event Train Service – Services Provided (ridership for events occurring after the November 22nd report cutoff will be reported in January):

• 49ers Regular Season – The 49ers hosted the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday, October 22 at 1:05 p.m. Caltrain operated one additional pre-game express train and one additional post-game local train. Total year-to-date ridership alighting and boarding at Mountain View was 9,283, a 20% decrease compared to the same number of games in 2016.

There were three 49ers home games in November on the 5th, 12th and 26th. For each game Caltrain operated one additional southbound pre-game express train and one additional northbound post-game local train.

• Stanford Football – Stanford hosted Cal in the Big Game on Saturday,

November 18 at 5:00 p.m. In addition to regular service trains stopping at the Stanford Stadium station, Caltrain ran one additional southbound express train pre-game and one additional northbound local train post-game providing more connections to BART at the Millbrae station. Total riders alighting and boarding at Stanford Stadium station for the Big Game was 2,034, a 47% decrease compared to 2015 Big Game ridership. Stanford also hosted Notre Dame on Saturday, November 25 at 5:00 p.m. in their last regular season game. Caltrain served the Stanford Stadium station with both northbound and southbound trains before and after all weekend home games.

• San Jose Sharks – There were six SJ sharks regular season home games

in October. Total year-to-date post-game Sharks fans and regular riders, boarding at San Jose Diridon station, was 2,691. There were eight SJ sharks regular season home games in November.


3

• Band Together Bay Area – A Benefit Concert for the North Bay Fire Relief was held at AT&T Park on Thursday, November 9 at 6:00 p.m. Performers included Metallica, G-Eazy, Rancid, David Matthews, Dead & Company and Raphael Saadiq. Caltrain operated two additional post-event special southbound trains. Total additional riders alighting and boarding at San Francisco station was 4,828.

• Holiday Service – Caltrain operated Holiday/Sunday Service on

Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 23.

• Modified Service – Caltrain operated a Modified Saturday Schedule with four extra trains in each direction, including one round trip from Gilroy to SF on Friday, November 24 - the Day After Thanksgiving.

• PAC-12 College Football Championship – The 2017 Football Championship Game between the winners of the PAC-12 North (Stanford) and PAC-12 South (USC) took place Friday, December 1 at 5:00 p.m. at Levi’s® Stadium. Caltrain operated one extra post-game local northbound train.

• Holiday Train – Caltrain operated the Holiday Train in collaboration with the Silicon Valley Community Foundation on Saturday, December 2 and Sunday, December 3. Glowing with thousands of lights and holiday decorations, the dazzling show-train visited nine Caltrain stations between San Francisco and Santa Clara over two nights in December, providing holiday entertainment and collecting toy and monetary donations for local children who otherwise might not receive a gift during the holidays. Donations benefited the Salvation Army and Toys for Tots. On Saturday, December 2, the train departed San Francisco and stopped at Burlingame, Redwood City, Mountain View, and Santa Clara. On Sunday, December 3, the train departed San Francisco and stopped at Millbrae, San Mateo, Menlo Park, and Sunnyvale.

• Correction: Giants Baseball Season Ridership Count – Ridership for Giants games was reported incorrectly in November. Total preseason and regular season additional ridership alighting and boarding at San Francisco station was 521,932, representing a 4% increase over 2016.

Services Scheduled:

• 49ers Regular Season – The 49ers will host the Tennessee Titans on Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:25 p.m. and the Jacksonville Jaguars on Sunday, December 24 at 1:05 p.m. Caltrain will provide one extra


4

southbound pre-game express train and one extra northbound post-game local train that will depart approximately 75 minutes, or when full, after the game ends and coordinate connecting service with the VTA.

• San Jose Sharks – The Sharks will host six games in December. Caltrain will track post-game ridership for all home games. No extra special trains are planned. For weeknight and Saturday night games, the last northbound train departs SJ Diridon station at 10:30 p.m. or 15 minutes after the game ends but no later than 10:45 p.m.

• Holiday Service – During the following Holidays, Caltrain will operate the

following weekend services:

o Sunday, December 24 - Christmas Eve (Sunday Service) o Monday, December 25 - Christmas Day (Holiday/Sunday Service) o Sunday, December 31 - New Year’s Eve (Sunday Service + Pre &

Post‐Fireworks Special Trains). Caltrain will be FREE from 8 p.m. on 12/31 until the last

special train reaches San Jose. o Monday, January 1 - New Year’s Day (Holiday/Sunday Service)

• Foster Farms Bowl – The Foster Farms Bowl will be held at Levi’s Stadium

on Wednesday, December 27 at 5:00 p.m. and will feature a PAC-12 conference team (outside of the college football playoff group) versus a top team from the Big Ten conference. Due to low ridership for past Foster Farms Bowls at Levi’s Stadium and teams still to be announced, no additional service is planned but ridership will be monitored.

6. Capital Projects –

The Capital Projects information is current as of November 17, 2017 and may be subject to change between November 17 and December 7, 2017 (Board Meeting).

• San Francisco Highway Bridges: Replace three obsolete overhead vehicular bridges located in San Francisco at 23rd Street, 22nd Street, and Paul Avenue. Construction started in March 2015 and was substantially completed in May 2017. Staff is waiting for the delivery of specialized materials in order to resolve a Buy America issue related to the fire hydrants that were installed as part of the project. The delivery of the materials is expected in January 2018. Staff is also continuing discussions with Caltrans, City of San Francisco, and third-party utilities to secure additional funding and reimbursement for additional incurred costs associated with their portion of work. The cost


5

reimbursement request to the City of San Francisco for their Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) has been submitted. The other third-party utility relocation (e.g., AT&T and PG&E) reimbursement requests are being prepared by staff or submission to the utility companies.

• San Mateo 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project: Raise the elevation of the alignment from Hillsdale Boulevard to south of the Highway 92 Overcrossing in the city of San Mateo. The project creates a grade separation at 25th Avenue, relocates the Hillsdale Station to the north, and creates two new east-west street grade-separated connections at 28th and 31st Avenues in San Mateo. Construction of the elevated rail alignment and the new Hillsdale Station will be phased to limit impact to the operating railroad to the degree possible. The Limited Notice to Proceed was issued on August 10 and the administrative period continues as the requirements have not yet been fulfilled. The Notice to Proceed, to allow full commencement of construction activities, will be issued upon completion of the administrative requirements. Mobilization activities have been proceeding such as surveying to establish the alignment of permanent structures, installation of temporary fencing, site preparation for temporary replacement parking, temporary shoring to support the construction of structures, potholing for utilities identification, and site clearing and grubbing. Overall construction is expected to be complete in early 2020.

• Los Gatos Creek Bridge: Replace the substandard 80-year old railroad bridge that is located south of the Diridon Station in San Jose. The construction contract was awarded in October 2016 to DMZ Builders and the Notice to Proceed was issued in late January 2017. Due to environmental regulations, bridge construction activities that are within the creek’s waterways are limited to the period between June and October 2017. During the past month, the bridge superstructure was completed and the installation of the trackwork on the bridge is underway. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) has completed installation of trackwork on Main Track #1 (northbound track). Installation of Main Track #2 (southbound track), by the contractor, is expected to be completed by the end of November. Revenue operations between the Tamien and San Jose Diridon stations are currently being conducted on the Tailtrack Bridge that was activated in August. Cutover of revenue operations onto Main Tracks 1 and 2 is expected in December. The creek diversion piping system was removed and the flow of water was returned to the creek bed. Installation of rock slope


6

protection, and, hydro seeding and plantings on the creek slope are in progress. Unforeseen weather such as record rainfall and unexpected subsurface conditions were encountered this past winter and spring. The project undertook measures to recover delays to maintain the schedule within the environmental restrictions. Construction is forecasted to complete by January 2018.

• South San Francisco Station Improvements: Replace the existing side platforms with a new centerboard platform, construction of a new connecting pedestrian underpass to two new plazas in downtown South San Francisco to the west and the shuttle area to east. Upon completion, the hold-out rule at this station will be removed that currently impacts the overall system operational efficiency. A groundbreaking ceremony was held on November 6 at the West Plaza area. A Limited Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor on October 9 to commence the 60-Day administrative period which precedes the start of field construction. Upon receipt of an encroachment permit from Caltrans, utility relocations and construction are expected to begin in December and overall completion by mid-2019. Relocation of the Kinder-Morgan fuel line, which is entirely in Caltrain right-of-way, began and was planned to be complete by the end of November.

• Redwood City Grade Crossing Improvements: The scope of this project is to improve the safety devices at three grade crossings within the city of Redwood City at Whipple Avenue, Main Street, and Broadway. The project will improve the Whipple Avenue crossing with new vehicular and pedestrian gates, new sidewalks and ramps, new pavement markings and striping. At Broadway, new pedestrian gates will be installed and new pavement markings will be added. At Main Street, new fencing, pedestrian gates, and pavement markings will be installed. The design of this project has been coordinated with the City of Redwood City’s improvements in the same area. The Limited Notice to Proceed (LNTP), initiating the 60-day administrative period that precedes construction, was issued to the contractor on November 8th. Construction is planned to start in the January 2018 and substantially complete by July 2018.

• FY16 Grade Crossing Improvements Project: The scope of this project is to improve the safety at 10 grade crossings along the corridor. Work items included are the installation of signals, fences, gates, curbs, lighting


7

and signs. The existing grade crossing warning devices will be retrofitted to meet the latest California Public Utilities Commission standards. The crossings to be improved include 16th Street in San Francisco, Broadway in Burlingame, Peninsula and 4th Ave. in San Mateo, Ravenswood in Menlo Park, Alma and Charleston in Palo Alto, Rengstorff and Castro in Mountain View, and Mary in Sunnyvale. The construction contract also includes the installation of medians at five crossings in Santa Clara County. The scopes of two projects were combined into a single construction contract to improve cost and administrative efficiency. These medians are required by the FRA and are intended to create a barrier that discourages vehicles from driving around down crossing gates. The five crossings are Churchill and East Meadow in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale Avenue in Sunnyvale, and Auzerais and West Virginia in San Jose. The construction contract was originally advertised for bids in July and the sole bid received was deemed to be non-competitive. The recommendation to reject bids was approved at the October 5th Board meeting. The scope of the contract has been modified to eliminate trackwork elements that may have confused potential bidders as the remainder of the contract scope is primarily municipal civil construction items such as pavement markings, striping and minor concrete work. Subsequently, the revised contract was re-advertised for bids on October 12 and multiple bids were received on November 9. Staff evaluation of the bids is in progress. Award is currently planned for early 2018 and construction is expected through early 2019. The eliminated trackwork scope will be performed by our contract operator, TASI, who is experienced in this type of construction.

• Sunnyvale Station Rehabilitation Project: : Replace the surface pavers in the station platform with colored cast-in-place concrete and the relocation of the north pedestrian crossing to the north by approximately 83 feet. Some of the surfaces of the platform pavers have become uneven and this project will create a smooth and even platform surface. The relocation of the north pedestrian crossing will help to clear the southern crossing that is currently partially blocked when northbound 6-car consists arrive at the Sunnyvale Station. The construction contract was awarded to Sposeto Engineering on September 7th and the execution of the contract continues pending the contractor’s documentation submittal. A Limited Notice to Proceed is to be issued to the contractor when the required insurance and bonding


8

documents are submitted by the contractor. Construction is expected to begin in early 2018 and be completed by mid-2018.

• Inward Facing Cameras: Install cameras on locomotives and cab cars that will video and voice record the train operators during revenue operations. Currently there are outward facing cameras on locomotives that record the right-of-way from the vantage point of the operators. The inward facing cameras are recommended by the National Transportation Research Board and assists in post-accident investigations. Inward facing cameras are already in service on Metrolink in Southern California and by railroads such as the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. A Request for Proposal was issued on May 25th; however, no vendor proposals were submitted. Discussions with potential vendors lead to a conclusion that re-advertising the contract was unlikely to result in proposals actually being submitted. Staff completed sole source negotiations with the vendor who previously installed the outward facing cameras in order to implement the project. The contract was awarded in November to Rail Power Services LLC. Completion of installation and testing is anticipated by the Spring of 2018.

• New Control Point at Brittan: Add a new control point in the corridor near Brittan Avenue in San Carlos. The new control is comprised of new crossover tracks (and associated signaling equipment) that will allow trains to cross over between the two mainline tracks in the 5-mile zone between Redwood City and Belmont. An operational capacity study that was conducted in 2013 recommended the potential addition of up to eight new control points to improve system operational capacity. The study ranked this location to be the most beneficial to increase efficiency and flexibility especially in the event of emergencies and equipment breakdowns. The new control point may also potentially increase work windows for construction projects. The construction contract was advertised for bids on October 5. Addenda were issued in November and bids are now due in December. Contract award is planned for early 2018. Procurement of long lead owner furnished materials such as special trackwork and signal houses is in progress. Construction is expected to begin in early 2018 and complete by the end of 2018.

• HVAC Improvements at the CCF Communications Equipment Room: Improve the cooling systems in the electronics equipment room at the Central Control Facility in San Jose. The amount of electronic equipment has greatly increased which has resulted in overloading of the existing


9

cooling system. With the addition of newer systems such as CBOSS/PTC, ROCS/PADS, and upgrades to communications systems; the capacity of the existing cooling system is inadequate to maintain a sufficiently cool temperature. Equipment failure to critical systems such as dispatching and communications due to overheating is an unacceptable operational risk. Currently, this problem is being temporarily addressed by using rental cooling systems that are inadequate for future expansion and is costly. This project will address current and future cooling capacity by adding and replacing current cooling systems with newer and more efficient cooling equipment. The contract was advertised for bids in July and bids were received in August. The contract was awarded in November to Smith Electric Service. Construction is expected to begin in early 2018 and complete by mid-2018.

Modernization Program

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)

October 2017

Monthly Progress Report

October 31, 2017

Funding Partners

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Core Capacity

FTA Section 5307 (Environmental / Pre Development only)

FTA Section 5307 (Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) only)

Prop 1B (Public Transportation Modernization & Improvement Account)

Caltrain Low Carbon Transit Operations Cap and Trade

Proposition 1A

California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Cap and Trade

Carl Moyer Fund

Bridge Tolls (Funds Regional Measure (RM) 1/RM2)

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)/San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Contribution

SMCTA Measure A

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure A

VTA Contribution

City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Contribution

http://www.smcta.com/smcta_com.html

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project


Table of Contents i October 31, 2017

Table of Contents Page

1.0 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 2-1

Funding Partners Participation in PCEP ........................................................... 2-2 2.1

Schedule .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2

Budget ............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3

Board Actions .................................................................................................. 2-6 2.4

Government and Community Affairs ................................................................ 2-6 2.5

3.0 ELECTRIFICATION – INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................ 3-1

Electrification ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) ......................................... 3-2 3.2

Tunnel Modification .......................................................................................... 3-2 3.3

4.0 ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNITS .................................................................................... 4-1

Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF) 4.1Modifications .................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 SAFETY ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE ............................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 SCHEDULE................................................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................ 8-1

9.0 CHANGE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 9-1

10.0 FUNDING .................................................................................................................. 10-1

11.0 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 11-1

12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ................................................................................................... 12-1

Permits .......................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) .................................. 12-1 12.2

13.0 UTILITY RELOCATION ............................................................................................ 13-1

14.0 REAL ESTATE ......................................................................................................... 14-1

15.0 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS ................................................................................ 15-1

16.0 GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ......................................................... 16-1



Table of Contents ii October 31, 2017

17.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION AND LABOR STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 17-1

18.0 PROCUREMENT ...................................................................................................... 18-1

19.0 TIMELINE OF MAJOR PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS ....................................... 19-1

List of Tables

Page

Table 2-1 Schedule Status ...................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-2 Budget and Expenditure Status ............................................................................... 2-6

Table 6-1 Quality Assurance Audit Summary .......................................................................... 6-1

Table 7-1 Schedule Status ...................................................................................................... 7-1

Table 7-2 Critical Path Summary ............................................................................................ 7-2

Table 7-3 Near-Term, Near-Critical with Less Than Three Months of Float ............................. 7-2

Table 8-1 Electrification Budget & Expenditure Status ............................................................ 8-1

Table 8-2 EMU Budget & Expenditure Status ......................................................................... 8-2

Table 8-3 PCEP Budget & Expenditure Status ........................................................................ 8-2

Table 11-1 Monthly Status of Risks ....................................................................................... 11-2

Table 11-2 Risk Classification ............................................................................................... 11-3

Table 14-1 Real Estate Acquisition Overview ........................................................................ 14-1

Table 15-1 Third-Party Agreement Status ............................................................................. 15-1

List of Figures

Page

Figure 2-1 PCEP Work Segments ........................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 10-1 Funding Plan ...................................................................................................... 10-1

List of Appendices

Page

Appendix A – Acronyms .......................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Funding Partner Meetings ................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C – Schedule ........................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D – Standard Cost Codes ........................................................................................ D-1

Appendix E – Change Order Logs ........................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F – Risk Table ......................................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G – MMRP Status Log ............................................................................................. G-1



Background 1-1 October 31, 2017

1.0 BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, Caltrain has experienced a substantial increase in ridership and anticipates further increases in ridership demand as the San Francisco Bay Area’s population grows. The Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) Program, scheduled to be implemented by 2020, will electrify and upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety, and reliability of Caltrain’s commuter rail service.

The PCEP is a key component of the CalMod Program and consists of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains for service between the San Francisco Station (at the intersection of Fourth and King Streets in San Francisco) and the Tamien Station in San Jose. Caltrain will continue Gilroy service and support existing tenants.

An electrified Caltrain will better address Peninsula commuters’ vision of environmentally friendly, fast and reliable service. Electrification will modernize Caltrain and make it possible to increase service while offering several advantages in comparison with existing diesel power use, including:

Improved Train Performance, Increased Ridership Capacity and Increased Service: Electrified trains can accelerate and decelerate more quickly than diesel-powered trains, allowing Caltrain to run more efficiently. In addition, because of their performance advantages, electrified trains will enable more frequent and/or faster train service to more riders.

Increased Revenue and Reduced Fuel Cost: An electrified Caltrain will increase ridership and fare revenues while decreasing fuel costs.

Reduced Engine Noise Emanating from Trains: Noise from electrified train engines is measurably less than noise from diesel train engines. Train horns will continue to be required at grade crossings, adhering to current safety regulations.

Improved Regional Air Quality and Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Electrified trains will produce substantially less corridor air pollution compared with diesel trains even when the indirect emissions from electrical power generation are included. Increased ridership will reduce automobile usage, resulting in additional air quality benefits. In addition, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will improve our regional air quality, and will also help meet the state’s emission reduction goals.



Executive Summary 2-1 October 31, 2017

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Monthly Progress Report is intended to provide an overview of the PCEP and provide funding partners, stakeholders, and the public an overall update on the progress of the project. This document provides information on the scope, cost, funding, schedule, and project implementation. Work along the Caltrain Electrification Corridor has been divided into four work segments as shown in Figure 2-1. PCEP activities are described and summarized by work segments.

Figure 2-1 PCEP Work Segments




Foundation installation began in Segment 2 Work Area 5, the “Issued for Construction” (IFC) Overhead Contact System (OCS) layout designs were completed for Segment 2 Work Area 4, the OCS poles and layout designs for Segment 4 and other work areas in Segment 2 were advanced to 65%, and workshops were held to advance signal design solutions.

The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued and a kickoff meeting was held. The next step is to work on the design.

A groundbreaking ceremony was held for the new EMU manufacturing facility in Salt Lake City, Utah and was attended by Senator Orrin Hatch and Governor Gary Herbert. The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) packages for features such as ventilation, the car shell, door controls, and propulsion are being finalized. Car shell extrusions and machined parts are being prepared for the start of car shell manufacturing.

The JPB System Modification Review Committee reviewed and approved improvements for the Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF). The design work is expected to begin in November.

Funding Partners Participation in PCEP 2.1

The PCEP has a series of weekly, biweekly, monthly and quarterly meetings to coordinate all aspects of the program. The meetings are attended by project staff with participation by our funding partners in accordance with the Funding Partners Oversight Protocol. A summary of funding partner meetings and invitees can be found in Appendix B.

This section of the report provides a summary of the discussions and decisions made at the meetings and a list of funding partners who attended the meetings.

Electrification – Engineering Meeting – Weekly

Purpose: To discuss status, resolution and tracking of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII) and Electrification design-related issues, to discuss and monitor the progress of utility relocation compared to schedule, and to discuss third-party coordination activities with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), CHSRA, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Bay Area Rapid Transit, California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CBOSS and others.

Activity this Month

Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier

Major topics included: PG&E power quality study and the interconnections feasibility study, coordination between the PCEP and CBOSS projects, the utility relocation updates from utility companies, tunnel design, the SCADA contract status, progress on Design-Build (DB) contract, upcoming changes to the contract in preparation for the Change Management Board (CMB), Right of Way (ROW) needs due to the project and coordination with third parties on design review and permitting for the project.




PCEP Delivery Coordination Meeting – Bi-Weekly

Purpose: To facilitate high-level coordination and information sharing between cross-functional groups regarding the status of the work for which they are responsible.

Activity this Month

October 10 Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier and Wai-On Siu; SFCTA: Luis Zurinaga

BBII completed the first foundation October 9. The bike configuration has been decided as the stacking option, which will increase capacity by 12%. Risk management has completed the preliminary analysis of the Risk Refresh. The Utilities Partnering meeting went very well.

October 24 Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier; SFCTA: Luis Zurinaga

The CHSRA Quarterly Meeting has been scheduled for November 29 and the FTA Quarterly Meeting has been scheduled for November 30. Public Outreach will be developing incremental metrics to show project job creation. The Document Control team has begun development on additional document control sites, including PG&E, Tunnels, CEMOF, SCADA, and Utilities. The DB Contractor Systems Integration Test Plan has been submitted. Stadler held a groundbreaking ceremony on October 13 for their new Salt Lake City facility. Design for the Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF) upgrade is scheduled to be complete and ready for bid April 2018 and completion of construction scheduled in September 2019.

Systems Integration Meeting – Bi-Weekly

Purpose: To discuss and resolve issues with inter-system interfaces and to identify and address interface points which have yet to be addressed.

Activity this Month

Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier and Wai-on Siu

Major topics included: Monitoring and resolution of systems integration issues and scheduling regular interface meetings, defining the de-energized zone for EMU maintenance at CEMOF, a Rail Activation Committee has been created and is proceeding with the preparation of a schedules of activities to include energization of the traction power substations (TPS), EMU delivery and DB construction, systems integration testing activities, safety certification, and community outreach.

Master Program Schedule (MPS) Meeting – Monthly

Purpose: To review the status of the MPS and discuss the status of major milestones, critical and near critical paths, upcoming Board review items, and progress with the contracts, among others.

Activity this Month

Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier




Due to delays in federal funding, the MPS was frozen in February. The FFGA was received in May and now the overall schedule is being refined to establish a new baseline. In October’s MPS monthly meeting, the revised summary schedule and key interface components of the draft MPS re-baseline were reviewed. At this time it is anticipated that the revised baseline will be presented at the November MPS monthly meeting for formal adoption.

Risk Assessment Meeting – Monthly

Purpose: To identify risks and corresponding mitigation measures. For each risk on the risk register, mitigation measures have been identified and are being implemented. Progress in mitigating these risks is confirmed at the ongoing risk monitoring and monthly risk assessment meetings.

Activity this Month

Funding Partners: CHSRA: Ian Ferrier, Wai-On Su; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): Trish Stoops; SFCTA: Luis Zurinaga

No risks were retired or added. One risk was reassigned from JPB to Stadler. Changes took place in September with the Risk Refresh Workshop. See the Risk Management section (Section 11) in this report for more details.

Change Management Board (CMB) – Monthly

Purpose: To review, evaluate, and authorize proposed changes to PCEP.

Activity this Month

There was no CMB meeting this month.

Potential contract changes will follow the PCEP Change Order Procedure. Once approved changes are executed, they will be reported in the Change Management section (Section 9) of this report.

BBII Contract

No changes were identified for consideration.

Stadler Contract


SCADA Contract





Schedule 2.2

The Revenue Service Date (RSD), which is the date the project is deemed completed, is delayed due to the FFGA delay and resulting effect on availability of permanent power from PG&E. Without adjustment for contingency, the RSD is forecast as December 2021. With the addition of approximately five months of contingency to account for potential risk to the project, the RSD is anticipated as April 2022. Due to FTA contingency requirements, an FFGA RSD will also be tracked. This date is forecast as August 22, 2022.

Table 2-1 indicates milestone dates for the MPS. At this time, not all milestones have been established as the revised Program Plan continues to be refined.

Table 2-1 Schedule Status1

Milestones Program Plan (April 2016)

Revised Program Plan

(October 2017)3

First Eight Miles of Electrification Complete to Begin Testing

04/08/2019 11/21/2019

Arrival of First Vehicle at JPB 06/25/2019 07/30/2019

PG&E Provides Permanent Power 09/01/2020 09/09/2021

Start Pre-Revenue Testing 09/08/2020 09/10/2021

RSD (w/o Risk Contingency) 08/16/2021 12/09/2021

RSD (w/ Risk Contingency) 12/30/2021 04/22/2022

FFGA RSD2 N/A 08/22/2022

Notes regarding the table above: 1. Schedule status is an approximation as the details of the revised MPS remain under review.

2. FFGA RSD did not exist at the time of the April 2016 Program Plan.

3. Program Plan dates may continue to shift slightly as the re-baseline process nears completion.




Budget 2.3

A summary of the overall budget and expenditure status for the PCEP is provided in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2 Budget and Expenditure Status

Description of Work Budget Current Budget Cost This Month Cost To Date Estimate To

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D)

3 (E) (F) = (D) + (E)

Electrification Subtotal $ 1,316,125,208 $ 1,316,125,208 $ 17,746,991 $ 275,399,154 $ 1,040,726,054 $ 1,316,125,208

EMU Subtotal $ 664,127,325 $ 664,127,325 $ 17,870,327 $ 84,327,540 $ 579,799,785 $ 664,127,325

PCEP TOTAL $ 1,980,252,533 $ 1,980,252,533 $ 35,617,318 $ 359,726,693 $ 1,620,525,839 $ 1,980,252,533

Notes regarding tables above: 1. Column B “Current Budget” includes executed change orders and awarded contracts.

2. Column C "Cost This Month" represents the cost of work performed this month.

3. Column D "Cost To Date" includes actuals (amount paid) and accruals (amount of work performed) to date.

Board Actions 2.4

− Addendum #2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approval of the inclusion of OCS pole alignment modifications to not preclude CHSRA future service

− Addendum #3 to the FEIR and approval of the inclusion of interconnection and PG&E substation design level detail for the PCEP

Future anticipated board actions include:

To Be Scheduled

− Cooperative Agreement with CCSF

− PG&E Supplemental Agreement #4: Construction

− Authority to procure used electric locomotives

− Ambassador Request for Proposal (RFP) award

– Switching station real estate transaction

Government and Community Affairs 2.5

A number of community relations and outreach events took place during the month. The PCEP team participated in a total of two meetings with stakeholders.



Electrification - Infrastructure 3-1 October 31, 2017

3.0 ELECTRIFICATION – INFRASTRUCTURE

This section reports on the progress of the Electrification, SCADA, and Tunnel Modification components. A brief description on each of the components is provided below.

Electrification 3.1

The Electrification component of the PCEP includes the installation of 138 miles of single track and OCS for the distribution of electrical power to the EMUs. The OCS will be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60-Hertz, single phase, alternating current supply system consisting of two TPSs, one switching station, and seven paralleling stations (PS). Electrification will be performed using a DB delivery method.

Activity This Month

OCS foundation installation began in Segment 2 Work Area 5. The first foundations are being installed is in an environmentally sensitive area. Those foundations were completed in October within the work window requirements of the environmental permit. Foundation installation will continue in the rest of Segment 2 Work Area 5.

Potholing of utilities at proposed OCS locations continued in Segments 2 and 4 in preparation of foundation installation. BBII also continued to remove obstructions found during the potholing process, such as loose concrete, asphalt, and other debris.

Test piles were tested and final results are pending.

Relocation of signal cables found in conflict with planned OCS foundations continues as conflicts are identified.

Continued progression of design with BBII for the OCS. IFC layouts for Segment 2 Work Area 4 were completed in October and BBII continues to advance the OCS poles and layout designs for Segment 4 and other work areas in Segment 2 to 65%.

Continued design review coordination with local jurisdictions for the OCS design in Segments 2 and 4, including responses to comments from jurisdictions and finalization of OCS pole colors in select station areas.

Continued to review and coordinate signal and communication design submittals with BBII. The project team and BBII held workshops with the signal designer to advance constant warning solutions. A preferred option from the workshops will be selected to be presented at the next meeting with the UPRR.

The project team and contractor continued the feasibility study for the 115 kV interconnections between the future Caltrain substations and PG&E’s substations.

The project team reviewed 95% TPS specifications and plans for TPS-2. Comments were returned to the contractor for the next round of submittals.

Continued coordination efforts with PG&E for infrastructure improvements, TPS interconnects and new service drop locations. The PCEP team continues to work with PG&E for the finalization of protection scheme studies.




The PCEP team and BBII continue to work through Site Specific Work Plans (SSWP) for upcoming field work.

BBII continued tree pruning and removal in Segment 2.

The Time Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed and agreed by the project and the contractor. The finalized TIA is being processed as a Contract Change Order.

Activity Next Month

Continue OCS foundation installation in Segment 2 Work Area 5, including preparation work in the South San Francisco Yard during day time shifts.

Continue work with BBII on field investigation activities and designs, which will include the progression of the OCS, traction power, bonding and grounding, signal systems, and other civil infrastructures such as overhead bridge protections.

Continue potholing and clearing of obstructions at proposed OCS locations. Potholing will continue in Segments 2 Segment 4.

Continue coordination with UPRR on signal and OCS design.

Continue review of BBII work plans for upcoming construction activities.

Coordinate with PG&E on interconnection design and final design for PG&E infrastructure. The feasibility study for the 115 kV interconnections will be completed and a routing option will be selected for each of the two substations.

Continue design reviews and coordination with local jurisdictions.

Continue tree pruning and removals.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 3.2

SCADA is a system that monitors and controls field devices for electrification, including substations, PSs and the OCS. SCADA will be integrated with the base operating system for Caltrain Operations and Control, which is the Rail Operations Center System.

Activity This Month

Issued NTP to Rockwell Collins.

The project team held kickoff meeting for the contract.

Activity Next Month

Hold bi-weekly technical meetings to advance SCADA contract.

Begin work on design.




Tunnel Modification 3.3

Tunnel modifications will be required on the four tunnels located in San Francisco. This effort is needed to accommodate the required clearance for the OCS to support electrification of the corridor. Outside of the PCEP scope, Caltrain Engineering has requested the PCEP team manage completion of design and construction management for the Tunnel 1 and Tunnel 4 Drainage Rehab Project. The Drainage Rehab Project is funded separately from PCEP and will be a Design-Bid-Build construction package. Construction will occur concurrently with the Electrification DB contractor’s efforts in Segment 1.

Activity This Month

The PCEP team continued coordination efforts with the design team on drawings and specifications on Tunnel 1 and Tunnel 4 Drainage Rehab Project.

The project team continued the resolution of comments on 100% plans and specifications.

Continued preparations of contract documents, including the general provision and special provision for bid.

Activity Next Month

Continue coordination efforts with UPRR and other stakeholders.

Complete comment resolution for 100% plans and specifications.

Complete draft of general and special provision for the contract.



Electric Multiple Units 4-1 October 31, 2017

4.0 ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNITS

The EMU procurement component of the PCEP consists of the purchase of 96 Stadler EMUs. The EMUs will consist of both cab and non-cab units configured as 16 six-car fixed trainsets. Power will be obtained from the OCS via roof-mounted pantographs, which will power the electric traction motors. The EMUs will replace a portion of the existing diesel locomotives and passenger cars currently in use by Caltrain.

Activity This Month

Stadler’s new Salt Lake City manufacturing facility for design and construction is progressing. Groundbreaking Ceremony held on October 13, 2017.

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) packages are being finalized for car shell, coupler/draft gear, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, door controls, propulsion, auxiliary electric, accessible toilet room, lighting and PTC.

EMU design coordination discussions continue with representatives from Caltrain Operations and Maintenance, Caltrain Public Outreach, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the FTA Project Management Oversight Contractor, Safety and Quality Assurance personnel, and PCEP Program Scheduling.

The PCEP team continues to address system-wide interface issues involving the emerging EMU design and the existing wayside infrastructure, the electrification project, and the CBOSS/PTC Project.

Car shell extrusions and machined parts being manufactured at Stadler sub-supplier facilities and being shipped to Stadler.

Activity Next Month

PDRs for trucks, suspension and the onboard wheelchair lift.

Continue Conceptual Design Reviews.

Continue to work with the FRA on EMU compliance issues.

Safety workshop.

FRA onsite visit to tour Caltrain system and to discuss EMU compliance issues.

Commencement of car shell manufacturing.

Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF) 4.1Modifications

The CEMOF Upgrade project will provide safe work areas for performing maintenance on the new EMUs.

Activity This Month

System Modification Review Committee reviewed and approved improvements.

Budget estimating and associated negotiation occurred with LTK sub-consultant HNTB.

Developed project schedule for design, procurement and construction phases.

Activity Next Month

Complete negotiations with HNTB and issue NTP.

Commence design activities.



Safety 5-1 October 31, 2017

5.0 SAFETY

Safety and Security requirements and plans are necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations related to safety, security, and emergency response activities. Safety staff coordinates with contractors to review and plan the implementation of contract program safety requirements. Safety project coordination meetings continue to be conducted on a monthly basis to promote a clear understanding of project safety requirements as defined in contract provisions and program safety documents.

Activity This Month

The monthly project Safety and Security Certification meeting was held on October 11, and the Fire/Life Safety and the Capital Safety Committee meetings were both held on October 25. Fire/Life Safety meeting topics included a review of a training familiarization module for emergency responders. In addition, project staff continues to participate in BBII monthly “All Hands” workforce meeting and contractor safety committee meetings.

Project safety staff continues to provide input and oversight of the contractor SSWP safety provisions including the BBII job hazard analysis and recommended mitigations. Throughout October, safety staff continued to provide safety construction oversight presence by performing safety inspections of work being performed by BBII subcontractors.

Project safety staff continued to closely work with JPB, PCEP, BBII and Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI) representatives to identify recommended corrective actions resulting from incident investigations that were performed in October. Although there were no injuries incurred from the October work-related incidents, Safety Stand Downs were conducted to reinforce safe practices from lessons learned.

Activity Next Month

Monthly safety communication meetings continue to be scheduled for the Project Safety and Security Certification Committee, Fire/Life Safety Committee, and other project-related contractor and JPB safety meetings designed to discuss project safety priorities. Project safety staff will continue to actively participate and present safety topics at the BBII “All Hands” monthly safety meetings.

Project safety staff will continue its focus on performing site safety inspections on the OCS foundation work to assess safety work practice and identify additional opportunities for improvement.

An EMU safety workshop is being planned for the end of November and will include Operations staff that will provide input on the functional aspects of the vehicle design. This information will be utilized to support the development of the EMU Operating Hazard Analysis.

Project safety staff will meet with the FTA PMOC staff to provide a status of project safety program development, challenges, and initiatives.

Project safety will continue to work closely with contractor staff to identify safety improvement opportunities.



Quality Assurance 6-1 October 31, 2017

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

The Quality Assurance (QA) staff performs technical reviews for planning, implementing, evaluating, and maintaining an effective program to verify that all equipment, structures, components, systems, and facilities are designed, procured, constructed, installed, and maintained in accordance with established criteria and applicable codes and standards throughout the design, construction, startup and commissioning of the PCEP.

Activity This Month

Staff meetings with BBII QA/Quality Control management representatives continue bi-weekly.

A draft revision of the PCEP Quality Management Plan issued in August is under review for preliminary comments.

Regularly scheduled design reviews and surveillance began on project design packages and will continue through spring of 2018.

Three design audits were conducted this month: Traction Power Facilities at 95%, Traction Power Systems at 95%, and Alstom Signaling Control Points at 65%.

A non-conformance report was issued to BBII for lack of mix design submittal, lack of concrete shrinkage tests, lack of approval of concrete batch plant, lack of concrete batch plant accreditation, and lack of 24-hour notice to JPB for construction activities.

Table 6-1 below provides details on the status of audits performed through the reporting period.

Table 6-1 Quality Assurance Audit Summary

Quality Assurance Activity This Reporting Period Total to Date

Audits Conducted 3 38

Audit Findings

Audit Findings Issued 0 24

Audit Findings Open 0 0

Audit Findings Closed 0 24

Non-Conformances

Non-Conformances Issued 1 5

Non-Conformances Open 1 1

Non-Conformances Closed 0 4

Activity Next Month

Five audits are planned and scheduled: Quikrete in Sacramento and Fremont, Wayside Power Cabinets at 95%, BBII RFI Procedures, BBII Purchasing.

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



Schedule 7-1 October 31, 2017

7.0 SCHEDULE

Due to delays in federal funding, the MPS was frozen in February. The FFGA was received in May and now the overall schedule is being re-evaluated. In July a revised high-level Program Plan was established (a summary of which can be found in Appendix C), which reflected a delay to the RSD, the date on which the project is deemed completed. The delay to RSD was caused primarily due to delay to FFGA and the resulting effect on availability of permanent power from PG&E.

Without adjustment for contingency, the RSD is forecast as December 2021, representing a four-month delay from the April 2016 Program Plan. With the addition of approximately five months of contingency to account for potential risk to the project, the RSD is anticipated as April 2022, which also represents a similar four-month delay to the Program Plan. Due to FTA contingency requirements, an FFGA RSD will also be tracked. This date is forecast as August 22, 2022.

Table 7-1 indicates milestone dates for the MPS. At this time, not all milestones have been established as the revised Program Plan continues to be refined. Items listed in Table 7-2 show the critical path activities/milestones for the PCEP. Table 7-3 lists near-critical activities on the horizon.

Notable Variances

As the FFGA has now been approved the MPS is under review for evaluation of variances. Once this review is complete and a revised Program Plan is established, variances will be reported against the revised plan.

Table 7-1 Schedule Status1

Milestones Program Plan (April 2016)

Revised Program Plan

(October 2017)3

First Eight Miles of Electrification Complete to Begin Testing

04/08/2019 11/21/2019

Arrival of First Vehicle at JPB 06/25/2019 07/30/2019

PG&E Provides Permanent Power 09/01/2020 09/09/2021

Start Pre-Revenue Testing 09/08/2020 09/10/2021

RSD (w/o Risk Contingency) 08/16/2021 12/09/2021

RSD (w/ Risk Contingency) 12/30/2021 04/22/2022

FFGA RSD2 N/A 08/22/2022

Notes regarding the table above: 1. Schedule status is an approximation as the details of the revised MPS remain under review.

2. FFGA RSD did not exist at the time of the April 2016 Program Plan.

3. Program Plan dates may continue to shift slightly as the re-baseline process nears completion.



Schedule 7-2 October 31, 2017

Table 7-2 Critical Path Summary1

Activity Start Finish

PG&E Final Design and Construction to provide Permanent Power

April 2016 09/09/2021

Pre-Revenue Testing 09/10/2021 12/09/2021

RSD w/out Risk Contingency2 12/09/2021 12/09/2021

RSD w/ Risk Contingency2 04/22/2022 04/22/2022

Note: 1.

Critical path is an approximation as the details of the revised MPS remain under review. 2.

Milestone activity.

Table 7-3 Near-Term, Near-Critical with Less Than Three Months of Float1

Work Breakdown Structure Activity Responsibility

Vehicles EMU Design Project Delivery

Note: 1.

Near-Term, Near-Critical Path is an approximation as the details of the revised MPS remain under review.



Budget and Expenditures 8-1 October 31, 2017

8.0 BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES

The summary of overall budget and expenditure status for the PCEP is shown in the following tables. Table 8-1 reflects the Electrification budget, Table 8-2 reflects the EMU budget, and Table 8-3 reflects the overall project budget.

Table 8-1 Electrification Budget & Expenditure Status

Description of Work Budget Current Budget

Cost This Month Cost To Date

Estimate To Complete

Estimate At Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D)

3 (E) (F) = (D) + (E)

ELECTRIFICATION

Electrification4 $ 696,610,558 $ 696,696,030 $ 13,601,693 $ 170,763,290 $ 525,932,740 $ 696,696,030

SCADA $ - $ 3,446,917 $ - $ - $ 3,446,917 $ 3,446,917

Tunnel Modifications $ 11,029,649 $ 11,029,649 $ - $ - $ 11,029,649 $ 11,029,649

Real Estate $ 28,503,369 $ 28,503,369 $ 499,123 $ 11,119,380 $ 17,383,989 $ 28,503,369

Private Utilities $ 63,515,298 $ 63,515,298 $ 1,509,347 $ 8,555,345 $ 54,959,954 $ 63,515,298

Management Oversight5 $ 141,506,257 $ 141,526,164 $ 1,198,007 $ 75,942,650 $ 65,583,514 $ 141,526,164

Executive Management $ 7,452,866 $ 7,452,866 $ 150,281 $ 3,684,898 $ 3,767,968 $ 7,452,866

Planning $ 7,281,997 $ 7,281,997 $ 94,818 $ 4,936,886 $ 2,345,111 $ 7,281,997

Community Relations $ 2,789,663 $ 2,789,663 $ 34,336 $ 1,158,860 $ 1,630,802 $ 2,789,663

Safety & Security $ 2,421,783 $ 2,421,783 $ 78,662 $ 909,667 $ 1,512,116 $ 2,421,783

Project Mgmt Services $ 19,807,994 $ 19,807,994 $ 169,283 $ 8,526,554 $ 11,281,440 $ 19,807,994

Eng & Construction $ 11,805,793 $ 11,805,793 $ 136,319 $ 2,706,965 $ 9,098,829 $ 11,805,793

Electrification Eng & Mgmt6 $ 50,461,707 $ 50,461,707 $ 259,200 $ 21,747,500 $ 28,714,208 $ 50,461,707

IT Support $ 312,080 $ 331,987 $ - $ 331,987 $ - $ 331,987

Operations Support $ 1,445,867 $ 1,445,867 $ 22,709 $ 488,315 $ 957,552 $ 1,445,867

General Support $ 4,166,577 $ 4,166,577 $ 114,842 $ 2,046,832 $ 2,119,745 $ 4,166,577

Budget / Grants / Finance $ 1,229,345 $ 1,229,345 $ 42,288 $ 534,827 $ 694,518 $ 1,229,345

Legal $ 2,445,646 $ 2,445,646 $ 27,566 $ 2,381,239 $ 64,407 $ 2,445,646

Other Direct Costs $ 5,177,060 $ 5,177,060 $ 67,702 $ 2,154,760 $ 3,022,299 $ 5,177,060

Prior Costs 2002 - 2013 $ 24,707,878 $ 24,707,878 $ - $ 24,333,358 $ 374,520 $ 24,707,878

TASI Support $ 55,275,084 $ 55,275,084 $ 821,039 $ 4,548,728 $ 50,726,356 $ 55,275,084

Insurance $ 3,500,000 $ 4,305,769 $ - $ 2,555,769 $ 1,750,000 $ 4,305,769

Environmental Mitigations 7 $ 15,798,320 $ 14,972,644 $ - $ 522,000 $ 14,450,644 $ 14,972,644

Required Projects $ 17,337,378 $ 17,337,378 $ - $ 367,028 $ 16,970,350 $ 17,337,378

Maintenance Training $ 1,021,808 $ 1,021,808 $ - $ - $ 1,021,808 $ 1,021,808

Finance Charges 7 $ 5,056,838 $ 5,056,838 $ 117,782 $ 1,024,964 $ 4,031,874 $ 5,056,838

Contingency $ 276,970,649 $ 273,438,260 $ - $ - $ 257,636,281 $ 257,636,281

Forecasted Costs and

Changes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,801,979 $ 15,801,979

ELECTRIFICATION

SUBTOTAL $ 1,316,125,208 $ 1,316,125,208 $ 17,746,991 $ 275,399,154 $ 1,040,726,054 $ 1,316,125,208

Notes regarding tables above: 1. “Current Budget” includes executed change orders and awarded contracts.



4. Cost To Date for “Electrification” includes 5% for Contractor’s retention until authorization of retention release.

5. The agency labor is actual through September 2017 and accrued for October 2017.

6. The lower accrued amount for Electrification Engineering & Management is result of lighter consultant support performed than

forecasted in the previous reporting periods. 7. The budget for these two items has been miss-stated in the past; they were amended as part of the FFGA submission.



Budget and Expenditures 8-2 October 31, 2017

Table 8-2 EMU Budget & Expenditure Status

Description of Work Budget

Current Budget

Cost This Month Cost To Date Estimate To

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D)

3 (E) (F) = (D) + (E)

EMU $ 550,899,459 $ 550,954,459 $ 17,147,461 $ 60,716,941 $ 490,237,518 $ 550,954,459

CEMOF Modifications $ 1,344,000 $ 1,344,000 $ - $ - $ 1,344,000 $ 1,344,000

Management Oversight4 $ 64,139,103 $ 64,139,103 $ 650,678 $ 22,994,190 $ 41,144,914 $ 64,139,103

Executive Management $ 5,022,302 $ 5,022,302 $ 139,746 $ 2,326,152 $ 2,696,150 $ 5,022,302

Community Relations5 $ 1,685,614 $ 1,685,614 $ (13,963) $ 393,413 $ 1,292,201 $ 1,685,614

Safety & Security $ 556,067 $ 556,067 $ 13,307 $ 264,227 $ 291,841 $ 556,067

Project Mgmt Services $ 13,275,280 $ 13,275,280 $ 105,369 $ 5,658,289 $ 7,616,991 $ 13,275,280

Eng & Construction $ 89,113 $ 89,113 $ - $ 23,817 $ 65,296 $ 89,113

EMU Eng & Mgmt $ 32,082,556 $ 32,082,556 $ 292,625 $ 10,309,967 $ 21,772,589 $ 32,082,556

IT Support $ 1,027,272 $ 1,027,272 $ 11,096 $ 330,442 $ 696,830 $ 1,027,272

Operations Support6 $ 1,878,589 $ 1,878,589 $ (1,859) $ 277,200 $ 1,601,388 $ 1,878,589

General Support $ 2,599,547 $ 2,599,547 $ 39,576 $ 903,045 $ 1,696,502 $ 2,599,547

Budget / Grants / Finance $ 712,123 $ 712,123 $ 22,795 $ 306,487 $ 405,637 $ 712,123

Legal $ 1,207,500 $ 1,207,500 $ - $ 867,662 $ 339,838 $ 1,207,500

Other Direct Costs $ 4,003,139 $ 4,003,139 $ 41,984 $ 1,333,490 $ 2,669,649 $ 4,003,139

TASI Support $ 2,740,000 $ 2,740,000 $ - $ - $ 2,740,000 $ 2,740,000

Required Projects $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ - $ - $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000

Finance Charges $ 1,941,800 $ 1,941,800 $ 72,189 $ 616,409 $ 1,325,391 $ 1,941,800

Contingency $ 38,562,962 $ 38,507,962 $ - $ - $ 37,209,202 $ 37,209,202

Forecasted Costs and

Changes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,298,760 $ 1,298,760

EMU SUBTOTAL $ 664,127,325 $ 664,127,325 $ 17,870,327 $ 84,327,540 $ 579,799,785 $ 664,127,325

Notes regarding tables above: 1. “Current Budget” includes executed change orders and awarded contracts.



4. The agency labor is actual through September 2017 and accrued for October 2017.

5. Negative accrued amount is reported in October 2017 is result of lighter consultant support performed than forecasted in the

previous reporting periods.

Table 8-3 PCEP Budget & Expenditure Status

Description of Work Budget Current Budget Cost This Month Cost To Date Estimate To

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D)

3 (E) (F) = (D) + (E)

Electrification Subtotal $ 1,316,125,208 $ 1,316,125,208 $ 17,746,991 $ 275,399,154 $ 1,040,726,054 $ 1,316,125,208

EMU Subtotal $ 664,127,325 $ 664,127,325 $ 17,870,327 $ 84,327,540 $ 579,799,785 $ 664,127,325

PCEP TOTAL $ 1,980,252,533 $ 1,980,252,533 $ 35,617,318 $ 359,726,693 $ 1,620,525,839 $ 1,980,252,533

Notes regarding tables above: 1. Column B “Current Budget” includes executed change orders and awarded contracts.



Appendix D includes costs broken down by Standard Cost Code (SCC) format. This format is required for reporting of costs to the FTA. The overall project total in the SCC format is lower than the project costs in table 8-3. This is due to the exclusion of costs incurred prior to the project entering the Project Development phase.



Change Management 9-1 October 31, 2017

9.0 CHANGE MANAGEMENT

The change management process establishes a formal administrative work process associated with the initiation, documentation, coordination, review, approval and implementation of changes that occur during the design, construction or manufacturing of the PCEP. The change management process accounts for impacts of the changes and ensures prudent use of contingency.

Currently the three PCEP contracts are BBII, Stadler, and SCADA. Future PCEP contracts such as CEMOF Modifications and the Tunnel Notching will also follow the change management process.

A log of all executed change orders can be found in Exhibit E.

Executed Contract Change Orders (CCO) This Month

Electrification Contract

Change Order Authority (5% of BBII Contract) 5% x $696,610,558 = $34,830,528

Date Description CCO Amount

No changes executed this month

Total

EMU Contract

Change Order Authority (5% of Stadler Contract) 5% x $550,899,459 = $27,544,973


10/27/2017 CCO 00002 – Prototype Seats and Special Colors $55,000

Total $55,000

SCADA Contract

Change Order Authority (15% of ARINC Contract) 15% x $3,446,917 = $517,038


None to date

Total



Funding 10-1 October 31, 2017

10.0 FUNDING

Figure 10-1 depicts a summary of the funding plan for the PCEP. It provides a breakdown of the funding partners as well as the allocated funds. As previously noted, the JPB received approval of the FFGA from the FTA in May 2017. The Agreement provides the project with a commitment of $647 million in federal funding, with $72.9 million available immediately. An additional $100 million in Fiscal Year 2017 funding has been made available by FTA through the annual apportionment process and those funds are now included as part of the FFGA.

Figure 10-1 Funding Plan



Risk Management 11-1 October 31, 2017

11.0 RISK MANAGEMENT

The risk management process is conducted in an iterative fashion throughout the life of the project. During this process, new risks are identified, other risks are resolved or managed, and potential impacts and severity modified based on the current situation. The Risk Management team’s progress report includes a summary on the effectiveness of the Risk Management Plan, any unanticipated effects, and any correction needed to handle the risk appropriately.

The Risk Management team meets monthly to identify risks and corresponding mitigation measures. Each risk is graded based on the potential cost and schedule impacts they could have on the project. This collection of risks has the greatest potential to affect the outcome of the project and consequently is monitored most closely. For each of the noted risks, as well as for all risks on the risk register, mitigation measures have been identified and are being implemented. Progress in mitigating these risks is confirmed at monthly risk assessment meetings attended by project team management and through continuous monitoring of the Risk Management Lead.

The team has identified the following items as top risks for the project (see Appendix G for the complete Risk Table):

BBII may be unable to develop grade crossing modifications that meet operational requirements prior to scheduled sub-system testing of the grade crossings.

Costs for upgrades to PG&E power stations may exceed the current budget.

A complex and diverse collection of major program elements may not be successfully integrated with existing operations and infrastructure.

Relocation of Verizon must precede installation of foundations and connections to Traction Power Substations (TPS). Relocation work will be performed by others and may not be completed to meet BBII’s construction schedule.

Additional work in the form of signal/pole adjustments may be required to remedy sight distance impediments arising from modifications to original design.

Working PTC signal system may not be in place in advance of integrated testing and commissioning.

Design changes may necessitate additional implementation of environmental mitigations not previously budgeted.

Relocation of overhead utilities must precede installation of catenary wire and connections to TPSs. Relocation work will be performed by others and may not be completed to meet BBII’s construction schedule.

Collaboration across multiple disciplines may fail to comprehensively address all of the elements required to operate and maintain an electrified railroad and decommission the current diesel fleet.

BBII may be unable to get permits required by jurisdictions for construction in a timely manner.

TASI may be unable to deliver sufficient resources to support construction and testing for the electrification contract.




Activity This Month

Information received during Risk Refresh Workshop was reviewed and incorporated into a Summary Memorandum and a draft Risk Analysis Report. A Monte Carlo analysis was performed on the cost impacts of the risk register. Refinements to retirement dates and updating of the program schedule were made in preparation for a Monte Carlo analysis of schedule impacts.

Updates were made to risk descriptions, effects, and mitigations based upon weekly input from risk owners. Monthly cycle of risk updating was completed based on schedules established in the Risk Identification and Mitigation Plan.

Risk retirement dates were updated based upon revisions to the project schedule and input from risk owners.

Continued weekly monitoring of risk mitigation actions and publishing of the risk register.

The Risk Management team attended Project Delivery and Systems Integration meetings to monitor developments associated with risks and to identify new risks.

Refined wording for top risks.

Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show the risks identified for the program. Risks are categorized as top risk, upcoming risk, and all other risks. The categories are based on a rating scale composed of schedule and cost factors. Simply put, top risks are considered to have a significantly higher than average risk grade. Upcoming risks are risks for which mitigating action must be taken within 60 days. All other risks are risks not falling into other categories.

Table 11-1 Monthly Status of Risks

Total Number of Active Risks = 106




Table 11-2 Risk Classification

Total Number of Active Risks = 106

Activity Next Month

Document Risk Refresh Workshop and incorporate changes into risk register.

Conduct weekly monitoring of risk mitigation actions and continue publishing risk register.

Update risk descriptions, effects, mitigations and retirement dates based on weekly monitoring.

Continue reviewing risks on project risk register with Systems Integration database.

Update Risk Identification and Mitigation Plan.

Finalize risk assessment report based upon results of Risk Refresh Workshop.



Environmental 12-1 October 31, 2017

12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

Permits 12.1

The PCEP requires environmental permits from the following agencies/federal regulations: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission.

Section 106 of the NHPA process and Section 7 of the ESA process have concluded.

Activity This Month

No permit updates occurred.

Activity Next Month

No permit updates are planned.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 12.2

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency establish a program to monitor and report on mitigation measures that it has adopted as part of the environmental review process. The PCEP team has prepared a MMRP to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the PCEP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are fully implemented during project implementation. PCEP will implement the mitigation measures through its own actions, those of the DB contractor and actions taken in cooperation with other agencies and entities. The status of each mitigation measure in the MMRP is included in Appendix G.

Activity This Month

OCS pole foundation installation began this month and environmental compliance monitors were present during project activities occurring in areas that required monitoring. The monitoring was conducted in accordance with measures in the MMRP in an effort to minimize potential impacts on sensitive environmental resources.

Noise and vibration monitoring also occurred during project activities, and non-hazardous soil was removed from the ROW.

Pre-construction surveys for sensitive wildlife ahead of project activities occurred to help ensure no special-status species were impacted during project activities.

Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) staking occurred to delineate jurisdictional waterways, and other potentially sensitive areas, that should be avoided during upcoming construction activities, and wildlife exclusion fencing installation was initiated adjacent to portions of the alignment designated for wildlife exclusion fencing.

Silt fencing installation occurred at equipment staging areas in accordance with the project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.



Environmental 12-2 October 31, 2017

Archaeological exploratory trenching was initiated within known archaeological sites and other culturally sensitive areas.

Activity Next Month

OCS pole foundation installation will continue in Segment 2.

Environmental compliance monitors will continue to monitor project activities occurring in areas that require monitoring in an effort to minimize potential impacts on sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the MMRP.

Noise and vibration monitoring of project activities will continue to occur and non-hazardous soil will continue to be removed.

Tree trimming and removal will continue in Segment 2, and biological surveyors will continue to conduct pre-construction surveys for sensitive wildlife species ahead of project activities.

Silt fencing installation will continue.

ESA staking will continue to occur in Segment 2 to delineate jurisdictional waterways and other potentially sensitive areas that should be avoided during upcoming project activities.

Wildlife exclusion fencing will continue to be installed in Segment 2 prior to upcoming construction activities adjacent to potentially suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species.

Archaeological exploratory trenching will continue to occur prior to construction activities within culturally sensitive areas.



Utility Relocation 13-1 October 31, 2017

13.0 UTILITY RELOCATION

Implementation of the PCEP requires relocation or rerouting of both public and private utility lines and/or facilities. Utility relocation will require coordination with many entities, including regulatory agencies, public safety agencies, federal, state, and local government agencies, private and public utilities, and other transportation agencies and companies. This section describes the progress specific to the utility relocation process.

Activity This Month

Work continued with all utilities on review of overhead utility line relocations based on the current preliminary design.

Continued individual coordination with utility companies on relocation plans and schedule for incorporation with project master schedule.

Continued to work on relocation design review for PG&E and coordinate with PG&E on permitting and work planning.

Continued to work with Verizon to resolve the relocation of fiber optic cable within the Caltrain ROW. A temporary relocation method has been agreed by both parties for the installation of foundation. The project team will continue to work with Verizon on the permanent relocation as well as the commercial terms of the relocation.

The project team worked in collaboration with PG&E on SSWPs required for the relocation of PG&E facilities.

Activity Next Month

Continue monthly meetings with telecom and power carriers.

Continue to coordinate with utility owners on the next steps of relocations, including support of any required design information.

Update the relocation schedule as information becomes available from the utility owners.

Continue work with Verizon to relocate their parallel aerial fiber optic cable on a permanent basis and the terms of the relocation.

Continue review of relocation design from PG&E and coordinate with PG&E on permitting and work planning for relocations.

Provide support for PG&E’s first relocations in Segment 2 Work Area 5.



Real Estate 14-1 October 31, 2017

14.0 REAL ESTATE

The PCEP requires the acquisition of a limited amount of real estate. In general, Caltrain uses existing ROWs for the PCEP, but in certain locations, will need to acquire small portions of additional real estate to expand the ROW to accommodate installation of OCS supports (fee acquisitions or railroad easements) and associated Electrical Safely Zones (easements). There are two larger full acquisition areas required for wayside facilitates. The PCEP Real Estate team (RE team) manages the acquisition of all property rights. Caltrain does not need to acquire real estate to complete the EMU procurement portion of the PCEP.

Activity This Month

Table 14-1 below provides a brief summary of the Real Estate acquisition overview for the project.

The RE team continues to work with two commercial tenants to help them find a relocation site.

One owner in Segment 4 agreed to terms. The RE team continued negotiations on offers pending with PG&E and Central Concrete.

There are three active eminent domain actions in Segment 2, with other property owners either settling or in active negotiations to settle.

The remaining appraisals continued in Segments 1 and 3 and technical staff responded to a number of Requests for Information (RFI) to support the appraisal process.

One owner in Segment 3 signed a purchase agreement.

Activity Next Month

Negotiations for all outstanding offers will continue.

The appraisal for the UPRR site in Segment 4 is being updated.

Appraisals in Segments 1 and 3 will be finalized



Real Estate 14-2 October 31, 2017

Table 14-1 Real Estate Acquisition Overview

Segment No. of

Parcels Needed

*

No. of Appraisals Completed

Offers Presented

Offers Accepted

Acquisition Status

Escrow Closed

Eminent Domain Action Filed

Parcel Possession

Segment 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment 2 27 26 25 20 20 3 20

Segment 3 10 7 6 0 0 0 0

Segment 4 9 9 8 1 0 1 0

Total 55 42 39 21 20 4 20

Note: During design development, the real estate requirements may adjust to accommodate design refinements. Parcel requirements will adjust accordingly. The table in this report reflects the current property needs for the Project.

Status of Segment 2 and Segment 4 ROW Acquisition

Segment 2

− Three eminent domain actions have been filed with possession expected in January 2018.

− Exception: UPRR requested JPB follow their utility approval process.

Segment 4

− The Loop Bus eminent domain actions were filed, providing access by February 2018.

− One parcel agreed to terms and paperwork is being processed.

− Exception: PG&E property – JPB working with BBII to redesign the poles that impact PG&E operations.



Third Party Agreements 15-1 October 31, 2017

15.0 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS

Third-party coordination is necessary for work impacting public infrastructure, utilities, ROW acquisitions, and others. The table below outlines the status of necessary agreements for the PCEP.

Table 15-1 Third-Party Agreement Status

Type Agreement Third-Party Status

Governmental

Jurisdictions

Construction &

Maintenance1

City & County of San Francisco In Process

City of Brisbane Executed

City of South San Francisco Executed

City of San Bruno Executed

City of Millbrae Executed

City of Burlingame Executed

City of San Mateo Executed

City of Belmont Executed

City of San Carlos Executed

City of Redwood City Executed

City of Atherton In Process

County of San Mateo Executed

City of Menlo Park Executed

City of Palo Alto In Process

City of Mountain View Executed

City of Sunnyvale Executed

City of Santa Clara Executed

County of Santa Clara Executed

City of San Jose Executed

Condemnation Authority

San Francisco In Process

San Mateo Executed

Santa Clara Executed

Utilities Infrastructure PG&E Executed

2

Operating Rules CPUC Executed

Transportation

& Railroad

Construction & Maintenance Bay Area Rapid Transit Executed3

Construction & Maintenance California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) Not needed4

Trackage Rights UPRR Executed3

Notes regarding table above: 1. Agreements memorialize the parties’ consultation and cooperation, designate respective rights and obligations and ensure

cooperation between the JPB and the 17 cities and three counties along the Caltrain ROW and within the PCEP limits in connection with the design and construction of the PCEP.

2. The Master Agreement and Supplemental Agreements 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been executed. Supplemental Agreement 4 is the

remaining agreement to be negotiated and executed. 3. Utilizing existing agreements.

4. Caltrans Peer Process utilized. Formal agreement not needed.



Government and Community Affairs 16-1 October 31, 2017

16.0 GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

The Community Relations and Outreach team coordinates all issues with all jurisdictions, partner agencies, government organizations, businesses, labor organizations, local agencies, residents, community members, other interested parties, and the media. In addition, the team oversees the DB contractor’s effectiveness in implementing its Public Involvement Program. The following PCEP-related external affairs meetings took place this month:

Presentations/Meetings

Pre-Construction Community Meeting: Belmont/San Carlos

Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce

Third Party/Stakeholder Actions

None



DBE Participation 17-1 October 31, 2017

17.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION AND LABOR STATISTICS

The DB electrification contract has a DBE goal of 5.2% (or $36,223,749).

Payment Percentage

September Cumulative $1,848,482* 0.27%*

October $288,099 0.04%

Cumulative $2,136,581 0.31%

*In September, the cumulative amount was mistakenly reported as $1,795,031 or 0.258% due to an error in the figures. The table above reflects the corrections.

Upcoming DBE/Small Business Enterprise opportunities:

Tunnel Modifications

CEMOF Facility Upgrades for EMUs

On-call Safety & Security Support for PCEP



Procurement 18-1 October 31, 2017

18.0 PROCUREMENT

Contract Activity

No contract activity

Invitation for Bid (IFB)/Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/ Request for Proposals

(RFP) Issued this Month:

None

IFB/RFQ/RFP Received this Month:

None

Contract Awards this Month:

None

Work Directive (WD)/Purchase Order (PO) Awards & Amendments this Month:

Multiple WDs & POs issued to support the program needs

In Process IFB/RFQ/RFP/Contract Amendments:

RFP – 17-J-S-062 – On-Call Ambassador Support Services

RFP – 17-J-S-070 – On-Call Quality Assurance Independent Testing Laboratory

Memorandum of Understanding MOU – 18-J-P-065 – Purchase of Electric Locomotive – Mitsui

RFP – 18-J-S-066 – Overhaul Services of Electric Locomotive for PCEP – Amtrak

Upcoming Contract Awards:

No upcoming contract awards

Upcoming IFB/RFQ/RFP:

IFB – Tunnel Modifications

IFB – CEMOF Facility Upgrades for EMUs

RFP – On-Call Safety and Security Support for PCEP



Timeline 19-1 October 31, 2017

19.0 TIMELINE OF MAJOR PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Below is a timeline showing major project accomplishments from 2001 to 2017:

Date Milestone

2001 Began federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) / state EIR clearance process

2002 Conceptual Design completed

2004 Draft NEPA EA/EIR

2008 35% design complete

2009 Final NEPA EA/EIR and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

2014 RFQ for electrification

RFI for EMU

2015 JPB approves final CEQA EIR

JPB approves issuance of RFP for electrification

JPB approves issuance of RFP for EMU

Receipt of proposal for electrification

FTA approval of Core Capacity Project Development

2016 JPB approves EIR Addendum #1: PS-7

FTA re-evaluation of 2009 FONSI

Receipt of electrification best and final offers

Receipt of EMU proposal

Application for entry to engineering to FTA

Completed the EMU Buy America Pre-Award Audit and Certification

Negotiations completed with Stadler for EMU vehicles

Negotiations completed with BBII, the apparent best-value electrification firm

JPB approves contract award (LNTP) BBII

JPB approves contract award (LNTP) Stadler

FTA approval of entry into engineering for the Core Capacity Program

Application for FFGA

2017 FTA finalized the FFGA for $647 million in Core Capacity funding, met all regulatory requirements including end of Congressional Review Period (February)

FTA FFGA executed, committing $647 million to the project (May)

JPB approves $1.98 billion budget for PCEP (June)

Issued NTP for EMUs to Stadler (June 1)

Issued NTP for electrification contract to BBII (June 19)

Construction began (August)

EMU manufacturing began (October)

Issued NTP for SCADA to Rockwell Collins (October)



Appendices October 31, 2017

APPENDICES



Appendix A - Acronyms October 31, 2017

Appendix A – Acronyms



Appendix A - Acronyms A-1 October 31, 2017

AIM Advanced Information Management

ARINC Aeronautical Radio, Inc.

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BBII Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc.

CAISO California Independent System Operator

CalMod Caltrain Modernization Program

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEMOF Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act (State)

CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

DB Design-Build

DBB Design-Bid-Build

DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

DEMP Design, Engineering, and Management Planning

EA Environmental Assessment

EAC Estimate at Completion

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EMU Electric Multiple Unit

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESA Environmental Site Assessments

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report

FNTP Full Notice to Proceed

FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GO General Order

HSR High Speed Rail

ICD Interface Control Document

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

JPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

LNTP Limited Notice to Proceed

MMRP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPS Master Program Schedule

NCR Non Conformance Report

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (Federal)




NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NTP Notice to Proceed

OCS Overhead Contact System

PCEP Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project

PCJPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis

PMOC Project Management Oversight Contractor

PS Paralleling Station

PTC Positive Train Control

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

QMP Quality Management Plan

QMS Quality Management System

RAMP Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan

RE Real Estate

RFI Request for Information

RFP Request for Proposals

RFQ Request for Qualifications

ROCS Rail Operations Center System

ROW Right of Way

RRP Railroad Protective Liability

RSD Revenue Service Date

RWP Roadway Worker Protection

SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SCC Standard Cost Code

SPUR San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

SFBCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission

SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority

SFMTA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority

SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board

SOGR State of Good Repair

SS Switching Station

SSCP Safety and Security Certification Plan

SSMP Safety and Security Management Plan

SSWP Site Specific Work Plan

TASI Transit America Services Inc.

TBD To Be Determined

TPS Traction Power Substation




TVA Threat and Vulnerability Assessment

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority



Appendix B – Funding Partner Meetings October 31, 2017

Appendix B – Funding Partner Meetings



Appendix B – Funding Partner Meetings B-1 October 31, 2017

Funding Partner Meeting Representatives Updated July 25, 2017

Agency CHSRA MTC SFCTA/SFMTA/CCSF SMCTA VTA

FTA Quarterly Meeting Bruce Armistead

Boris Lipkin

Ben Tripousis(info only)

Ian Ferrier (info only)

Wai Siu (info only)

Anne Richman

Glen Tepke

Luis Zurinaga April Chan

Peter Skinner

Jim Lawson

Funding PartnersQuarterly Meeting

Bruce Armistead

Boris Lipkin

Ben Tripousis

John Popoff

Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga April Chan

Peter Skinner Krishna Davey

Funding Oversight (monthly) Ben Tripousis

Kelly Doyle

Anne Richman

Glen Tepke

Kenneth Folan

Anna LaForte

Maria Lombardo

Luis Zurinaga

Monique Webster

Ariel Espiritu Santo

April Chan

Peter Skinner

Jim Lawson

Marcella Rensi

Michael Smith

Change Management Board (monthly)

Bruce Armistead

Boris Lipkin

Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga

Tilly Chang(info only)

Joe Hurley Krishna Davey

Jim Lawson

Carol Lawson

Nuria Fernandez(info only)

Master Program Schedule Update (monthly)

Ian Ferrier

Wai Siu

Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga Joe Hurley Jim Lawson

Risk Assessment Committee (monthly)

Ian Ferrier

Wai Siu

Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga Joe Hurley Krishna Davey

PCEP Delivery Coordination Meeting (bi-weekly

Ian Ferrier Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga Joe Hurley Krishna Davey

Systems Integration Meeting (bi-weekly

Ian Ferrier

Wai Siu

Trish Stoops Luis Zurinaga Joe Hurley Krishna Davey



Appendix C – Schedule October 31, 2017

Appendix C – Schedule

# Activity Name Duration Start Finish

1 MASTER PROGRAM SCHEDULE C16.01 2168d 05/01/14 A 08/22/22

2 MILESTONES 2112d 05/01/14 A 08/22/22

3 Start 0d 05/01/14 A

4 NEPA Reevaluation Complete 0d 02/11/16 A

5 LNTP to Electrification Contractor 0d 09/06/16 A

6 LNTP to Vehicle Manufacturer 0d 09/06/16 A

7 FTA Issues FFGA 0d 05/23/17 A

8 Segment 4 (Test Track) Complete 0d 12/23/19

9 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w/out Risk Contingency 0d 12/09/21

10 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w Risk Contingency (JPB Target) 0d 04/22/22

11 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w/ Risk Contingency (FFGA RSD) 0d 08/22/22

12 PLANNING / APPROVALS 957d 05/01/14 A 12/29/17

13 REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION 661d 11/05/15 A 06/13/18

14 SEGMENT 1 155d 11/02/17 06/13/18

15 SEGMENT 2 345d 08/04/16 A 12/14/17

16 SEGMENT 3 126d 11/02/17 05/02/18

17 SEGMENT 4 574d 11/05/15 A 02/09/18

18 OVERHEAD UTILITY RELOCATION 674d 03/10/17 A 11/04/19

19 SILICON VALLEY POWER (SVP) 241d 07/06/17 A 06/15/18

20 PG&E 491d 03/13/17 A 02/15/19

21 CITY OF PALO ALTO (CoPA) 554d 03/10/17 A 05/15/19

22 AT&T 674d 03/10/17 A 11/04/19

23 PG&E INFRASTRUCTURE 1151d 03/01/17 A 09/09/21

24 INTERCONNECT (Supporting TPS-2) 372d 03/01/17 A 08/15/18

25 INTERIM POWER 265d 08/01/17 A 08/15/18

26 DESIGN & PERMITTING 151d 08/01/17 A 03/06/18

27 CONSTRUCTION 115d 03/06/18 08/15/18

28 PERMANENT POWER 1044d 08/01/17 A 09/09/21

29 DESIGN & PERMITTING 369d 08/01/17 A 01/15/19

30 CONSTRUCTION 675d 01/16/19 09/09/21

31 SCADA 999d 03/30/15 A 03/05/19

32 PREPARE SOLE SOURCE & AWARD 649d 03/30/15 A 10/16/17 A

33 DESIGN 232d 10/16/17 A 09/14/18

34 INSTALLATION & TEST 118d 09/17/18 03/05/19

35 CEMOF 472d 11/20/17 09/30/19

36 DESIGN 91d 11/20/17 03/30/18

37 BID & AWARD 111d 04/02/18 09/06/18

38 CONSTRUCTION 254d 10/01/18 09/30/19

39 TUNNEL MODIFICATION 1290d 10/31/14 A 12/02/19

40 DESIGN 802d 10/31/14 A 12/29/17

41 BID & AWARD 107d 01/02/18 05/31/18

42 CONSTRUCTION 359d 07/03/18 12/02/19

43 ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE 393d 03/01/17 A 08/31/18

44 BID & AWARD 218d 03/01/17 A 12/29/17

45 REHAB / TEST/ TRAIN / SHIP 172d 01/02/18 08/31/18

46 EMU 1907d 05/01/14 A 08/20/21

47 DEVELOP RFP, BID & AWARD 612d 05/01/14 A 09/02/16 A

48 DESIGN 870d 09/06/16 A 01/06/20

49 PROCUREMENT (Material) 806d 01/16/17 A 02/17/20

50 MANUFACTURING 970d 12/04/17 08/20/21

51 TRAINSET 1 641d 12/04/17 05/18/20

52 TRAINSET 2 642d 01/09/18 06/24/20

53 TRAINSET 3 550d 05/28/18 07/03/20

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q12014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 023

MASTER PROGRAM SCHEDULE C16.01... _PCEP C16.01 Summary FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 11/21/17 06:26

Actual Level of Effort

Prog Plan (C16.00)

Progress

Remaining

Near Critical

Critical

Start Milestone

Finish Milestone

Prog Plan (C16.00)

Critical Milestone

Risk Contingency

Page 1 of 2

Filename: _C16.01 111917...

Date Revision Checked ApprovedUpdates & Revisions Completed By A. ChristofasChecked By S. Iyer Approved By

# Activity Name Duration Start Finish

54 TRAINSET 4 515d 08/27/18 08/14/20

55 TRAINSET 5 490d 11/12/18 09/25/20

56 TRAINSET 6 445d 01/28/19 10/09/20

57 TRAINSET 7 420d 04/01/19 11/06/20

58 TRAINSET 8 410d 05/13/19 12/04/20

59 TRAINSET 9 415d 06/24/19 01/22/21

60 TRAINSET 10 395d 08/19/19 02/19/21

61 TRAINSET 11 390d 09/30/19 03/26/21

62 TRAINSET 12 370d 11/11/19 04/09/21

63 TRAINSET 13 370d 01/06/20 06/04/21

64 TRAINSET 14 360d 02/17/20 07/02/21

65 TRAINSET 15 350d 03/30/20 07/30/21

66 TRAINSET 16 340d 05/04/20 08/20/21

67 TESTING & STARTUP 247d 09/10/21 08/22/22

68 PRE-REVENUE TESTING 63d 09/10/21 12/09/21

69 REVENUE OPERATIONS 180d 12/09/21 08/22/22

70 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w/out Risk Contingency 0d 12/09/21

71 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w Risk Contingency (JPB Target) 0d 04/22/22

72 Revenue Service Date (RSD) w/ Risk Contingency (FFGA RSD) 0d 08/22/22

73 RISK CONTINGENCY 256d 12/10/21 08/22/22

74 ELECTRIFICATION SCHEDULE (BB) 110117 1741d 07/07/16 A 12/19/20

75 General 1741d 07/07/16 A 12/19/20

76 Permits 1279d 06/19/17 A 12/19/20

77 Design 1676d 09/06/16 A 12/18/20

78 All Work Areas 1676d 09/06/16 A 12/18/20

79 Segment 2 WA 5 415d 09/07/16 A 09/30/17 A

80 Segment 2 WA 4 & 5 471d 11/16/16 A 01/29/18

81 Segment 2 WA 4 505d 09/07/16 A 12/22/17

82 Segment 2 & 4 603d 09/07/16 A 03/23/18

83 Segment 4 1303d 09/12/16 A 01/09/20

84 Segment 2 553d 09/07/16 A 02/04/18

85 Segment 2 WA's 1, 2 ,& 3 610d 10/12/16 A 05/04/18

86 Segment 1 & 3 898d 09/19/16 A 01/03/19

87 Segment 1 920d 11/09/16 A 03/17/19

88 Segment 3 759d 01/23/17 A 12/31/18

89 Procurement 1151d 01/30/17 A 01/08/20

90 All Work Areas 1151d 01/30/17 A 01/08/20

91 Segment 4 211d 12/06/17 06/20/18

92 Segment 2 658d 06/19/17 A 02/21/19

93 Segment 1 765d 01/25/18 01/08/20

94 Segment 3 770d 01/21/18 01/08/20

95 Construction/Installation 1594d 11/22/16 A 12/18/20

96 All Work Areas 1594d 11/22/16 A 12/18/20

97 Segment 4 (6.6 Mi) 1130d 03/06/17 A 01/23/20

98 Segment 2 (21.1 Mi) 1316d 04/11/17 A 08/21/20

99 Segment 1 (8 Mi) 1095d 05/31/17 A 03/18/20

100 Segment 3 (15.4 Mi) 1203d 06/21/17 A 07/17/20

101 Testing & Commissioning 660d 02/07/19 10/14/20

102 All Work Areas 396d 10/11/19 10/14/20

103 Segment 4 504d 02/07/19 05/22/20

104 Segment 2 125d 03/07/19 01/19/20

105 Segment 1 44d 12/28/19 02/15/20

106 Segment 3 38d 01/06/20 04/23/20

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q12014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 023

MASTER PROGRAM SCHEDULE C16.01... _PCEP C16.01 Summary FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 11/21/17 06:26

Actual Level of Effort

Prog Plan (C16.00)

Progress

Remaining

Near Critical

Critical

Start Milestone

Finish Milestone

Prog Plan (C16.00)

Critical Milestone

Risk Contingency

Page 2 of 2

Filename: _C16.01 111917...

Date Revision Checked ApprovedUpdates & Revisions Completed By A. ChristofasChecked By S. Iyer Approved By



Appendix D – SCC October 31, 2017

Appendix D – Standard Cost Codes

Description of Work

Approved

Budget

(A)

Cost This Month

(B)

Cost To Date

(C)

Estimate To

Complete

(D)

Estimate At

Completion

(E) = (C) + (D)

10 ‐ GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $14,256,739 $0 $0 $14,256,739 $14,256,739

10.02 Guideway: At‐grade semi‐exclusive (allows cross‐traffic) $2,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000

10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel $8,110,649 $0 $0 $8,110,649 $8,110,649

10.07 Allocated Contingency $3,646,090 $0 $0 $3,646,090 $3,646,090

30 ‐ SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $2,265,200 $0 $0 $2,265,200 $2,265,200

30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $1,344,000 $0 $0 $1,344,000 $1,344,000

30.03 Allocated Contingency $421,200 $0 $0 $421,200 $421,200

30.05 Yard and Yard Track $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000

40 ‐ SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $255,072,402 $2,351,414 $48,726,292 $216,048,777 $264,775,069

40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $3,077,685 $0 $170,000 $2,907,685 $3,077,685

40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $62,192,517 $1,473,000 $6,473,889 $55,718,628 $62,192,517


40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments $2,200,000 $0 $0 $2,200,000 $2,200,000

40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks $32,579,208 $57,375 $141,375 $32,537,833 $32,679,208

40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls $568,188 $0 $0 $568,188 $568,188

40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping $804,933 $0 $0 $804,933 $804,933

40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots $284,094 $0 $0 $284,094 $284,094

40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction $107,343,777 $821,039 $41,941,028 $75,005,416 $116,946,444


50 ‐ SYSTEMS $502,706,079 $1,185,611 $8,154,437 $489,123,091 $497,277,528

50.01 Train control and signals $97,589,149 $0 $1,000,000 $96,008,848 $97,008,849


50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection $23,879,905 $0 $0 $23,879,905 $23,879,905


50.03 Traction power supply: substations (1)

$70,671,121 $0 $2,948,853 $67,722,268 $70,671,121


50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail $253,683,045 $1,185,611 $4,205,584 $251,948,911 $256,154,494


50.05 Communications $5,455,000 $0 $0 $5,455,000 $5,455,000

50.07 Central Control $2,090,298 $0 $0 $2,090,298 $2,090,298


60 ‐ ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $35,675,084 $449,980 $9,001,257 $26,673,827 $35,675,084

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate $25,927,074 $449,980 $8,977,060 $16,950,014 $25,927,074


60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses $1,000,000 $0 $24,198 $975,803 $1,000,000

70 ‐ VEHICLES (96) $625,599,147 $17,797,270 $78,095,075 $547,634,832 $625,729,907

70.03 Commuter Rail $589,222,291 $17,797,270 $78,095,075 $512,425,977 $590,521,051


70.06 Non‐revenue vehicles $8,140,000 $0 $0 $8,140,000 $8,140,000

70.07 Spare parts $18,763,931 $0 $0 $18,763,931 $18,763,931

80 ‐ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10‐50) $325,532,351 $13,643,073 $164,526,660 $165,424,052 $329,950,712

80.01 Project Development $130,350 $0 $280,180 -$149,830 $130,350

80.02 Engineering (not applicable to Small Starts) $181,346,859 $12,299,119 $126,859,185 $58,695,838 $185,555,022


80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction $72,910,901 $1,019,531 $29,696,258 $43,214,643 $72,910,901


80.04 Construction Administration & Management $23,677,949 $247,714 $2,442,309 $21,235,640 $23,677,949


80.05 Professional Liability and other Non‐Construction Insurance $4,305,769 $0 $2,555,769 $1,750,000 $4,305,769

80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. $6,341,599 $76,709 $2,692,959 $3,648,640 $6,341,599


80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection $3,287,824 $0 $0 $3,287,824 $3,287,824

80.08 Start up $1,797,957 $0 $0 $1,797,957 $1,797,957


Subtotal (10 ‐ 80) $1,761,107,001 $35,427,348 $308,503,721 $1,461,426,517 $1,769,930,238

90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (5)

$162,565,295 $0 $0 $153,742,058 $153,742,058

Subtotal (10 ‐ 90) $1,923,672,296 $35,427,348 $308,503,721 $1,615,168,575 $1,923,672,296

100 FINANCE CHARGES $6,998,638 $189,970 $1,641,373 $5,357,265 $6,998,638

Total Project Cost (10 ‐ 100) $1,930,670,934 $35,617,318 $310,145,094 $1,620,525,840 $1,930,670,934



Appendix E – Change Order Logs October 31, 2017

Appendix E – Change Order Logs



Appendix E – Change Order Logs E-1 October 31, 2017

Change Order Logs

Electrification Contract

Change Order Authority (5% of BBII Contract) 5% x $696,610,558 = $34,830,528

Date Description CCO Amount Percent of Authority

1

Remaining Authority

8/31/2017 CCO 00001 - Track Access Delays for 2016, Quarter 4 $85,472

Total $85,472 0.25% $34,745,056 Notes:

1. When the threshold of 75% is reached, staff may return to the Board to request additional authority.

EMU Contract

Change Order Authority (5% of Stadler Contract) 5% x $550,899,459 = $27,544,973


1

Remaining Authority

9/22/2017 CCO 00001 – Contract General Specification and Special Provision Clean-up $0

10/27/2017 CCO 00002 - Prototype Seats and Special Colors $55,000 0.20% $27,489,973

Total $55,000 0.20% $27,489,973 Notes:


SCADA Contract

Change Order Authority (15% of ARINC Contract) 15% x $3,446,917 = $517,038


1

Remaining Authority

None to date

Total $0 0% $517,038 Notes:




Appendix F – Risk Table October 31, 2017

Appendix F – Risk Table



Appendix F – Risk Table F-1 October 31, 2017

Listing of PCEP Risks and Effects in Order of Severity

ID RISK DESCRIPTION EFFECT(S)

279 BBII may be unable to develop grade crossing modifications that meet regulatory requirements prior to scheduled testing and commissioning of the system.

Crossing operations will not be acceptable to CPUC and FRA and therefore delay commissioning.

101 Costs for upgrades to PG&E power stations may exceed the current budget.

Additional project costs; potential delay to revenue service date.

223 A complex and diverse collection of major program elements and current Caltrain capital works projects may not be successfully integrated with existing operations and infrastructure.

Proposed changes resulting from electrification may not be fully and properly integrated into existing system.

281 Additional work in the form of signal/pole adjustments may be required to remedy sight distance impediments arising from modifications to original design.

Add repeater signals, design ductbank would result in increased design and construction costs.

100 Working PTC signal system may not be in place in advance of integrated testing and commissioning.

Integrated testing cannot be conducted without PTC in place to permit operation of vehicles on tracks

Delays to completion of signal system could result in conflicts with PTC testing and PCEP construction and integrated testing.

Potential for claims for D/B contractor.

287 Design changes may necessitate additional implementation of environmental mitigations not previously budgeted.

Increased cost for environmental measures and delays to construct and overall delay in construction schedule.

67 Relocation of overhead utilities must precede installation of catenary wire and connections to TPSs. Relocation work will be performed by others and may not be completed to meet BBII’s construction schedule.

Delay in progress of catenary installation resulting in claims and schedule delay.





263 Collaboration across multiple disciplines to develop a customized rail activation program may fail to comprehensively address the full scope of issues required to operate and maintain an electrified railroad and decommission the current diesel fleet.

Delay in testing of EMUs. Delay in Revenue Service Date. Additional costs for Stadler and BBII due to overall schedule delays.

276 BBII may be unable to get permits required by jurisdictions for construction in a timely manner.

Additional cost and time resulting from delays to construction.

209 TASI may be unable to deliver sufficient resources to support construction and testing for the electrification contract.

Testing delayed. Additional construction costs.

Change order for extended vehicle acceptance.

241 Balfour Beatty needs to build TP2 and Interconnection in time for PG&E to supply power in time to support testing • Date is December 2018 to support contractor’s schedule • Interim power was mitigation to providing permanent power Risk of PG&E delay in interim power availability.

Delay in testing and increased costs.

247 Timely resolution of 3rd party design review comments to achieve timely approvals.

Delay to completion of design and associated additional labor costs.

257 Modifications to the CTC system hardware and software and Back Office Server database and systems to support DB must be completed in time for cutover and testing.

Failure to follow the DB Management process will result in major interruption to train service and overall capital projects delay.

267 Additional property acquisition is necessitated by design changes.

Additional project costs and delays to schedule.

268 Potential that vehicles will not receive timely notification of compliance from FRA. Most significant issues include: • Placement of windows as emergency exits • Compliance with acceptable alternate crash management standards

Delays to completion of construction and additional cost to changes in design.





213 Unable to acquire property required to build PS-2.

Extensive redesign of existing and future facilities and utilities resulting in potential delay an additional costs to DB contractor.

240 Property not acquired in time for contractor to do work. Property Acquisition not complete per contractor availability date: • Fee • Easement • Contract stipulates that if parcels are not available by contract date, there is only a delay if parcels are not available by the time contractor completes the Segment

Potential delays in construction schedule.

64 Relocation of underground utilities must precede construction of catenary pole foundations. Potholing will identify any need for revisions to pole placement, which may result in a need for additional ROW or relocation of the utility by others.

Delay in installation of catenary poles resulting in claims and schedule delay. CBOSS FOC conflicts additional costs and delays include: 1. Potholing 2. Design 3. OCS materials 4. Encasement 5. ROW JPB Signal Cable conflicts additional costs and delays include: 1. Trenching 2. Splicing 3. Cable

115 Other capital improvement program projects compete with PCEP for track access allocation and requires design coordination (design, coordination, integration).

Schedule delay as resources are allocated elsewhere, won’t get track time, sequencing requirements may delay PCEP construction, track access requirements must be coordinated.

174 Installation of electrification infrastructure may require the relocation of signals, which would affect the block design.

Cost and schedule impacts resulting from the design, construction, and testing of modified signal system and review of revised block design.





184 Risk that CBOSS is not certified by FRA in time for integrated testing.

Schedule delay.

Additional costs associated with design revisions necessary to secure Type Approval.

260 EMU Contractor's facility is not completed before needed for vehicle assembly.

Delay in commencement of assembly of EMUs delaying final delivery and system-wide testing.

261 EMU electromechanical emissions and track circuit susceptibility are incompatible.

Changes on the EMU and/or signal system require additional design and installation time and expense.

262 Configuration changes from other capital projects could necessitate changes to electrification design.

Potential increase or decrease in final construction cost for electrification; additional cost for rework of completed construction; delays to overall project schedule due to inefficiencies.

265 PG&E must deliver interim power in time for testing for Balfour testing.

Delay in testing and increased costs.

277 Inadequate D-B labor to support multiple work segments.

Additional cost and time.

280 Field equipment installed by D/B contractor may not communicate with the Central Control Facility (CCF), the Back-Up Central Control Facility (BCCF) through SCADA and function as designed.

Additional time for testing and additional cost.

285 Potential for inflation, (except with respect to Maintenance Option) to increase contractor costs.

Higher cost.

286 Potential for wage escalation, (except for Maintenance Option) to increase contractor costs.

Higher cost.

242 JPB's ability to deliver work windows to contractor as dictated per contract.

Delays to construction schedule and associated delay claims.





56 Lack of O&M support for testing and/or vehicle operations. Includes operational readiness and personnel hired and scheduled to be trained.

Testing delayed.

Change order for extended vehicle acceptance.

88 Construction safety program fails to sufficiently maintain safe performance.

Work stoppages due to safety incidents resulting in schedule delay and additional labor costs.

161 Unanticipated costs to provide alternate service (bus bridges, etc.) during rail service disruptions.

Cost increase.

179 Risk that municipal reviews take additional time due to absence of municipal agreement.

Possible delay to: (1) to design review; (2) permit issuance; (3) construction within local jurisdiction right-of-way

183 Installation and design of new duct bank takes longer because of UP coordination.

Schedule - Delay. May need to use condemnation authority to acquire easement.

Cost - Additional cost for PG&E to make connections increasing project costs.

250 Potential for municipalities to request betterments as part of the electrification project.

Delay to project schedule in negotiating betterments as part of the construction within municipalities and associated increased cost to the project as no betterments were included in the project budget.

259 Work on 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project could delay Balfour construction schedule.

• Increased cost for BBII as catenary construction in this section was anticipated to be constructed under the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project.

• Potential delays in construction schedule • Risk is delay to BBII





266 Relocation of Verizon must precede installation of foundations and connections to TPSs. Relocation work will be performed by others and may not be completed to meet BBII’s construction schedule.

Delay in progress of catenary installation resulting in claims and schedule delay.

270 OCS poles or structures as designed by Contractor fall outside of JPB row.

Additional ROW Take, additional cost and time.

82 Unexpected restrictions could affect construction progress: • night work • noise • local roads • local ordinances

• Reduced production rates. • Delay.

119 Coordination of electrification design with Operations.

• Qualified individuals may not be available. • Training may take longer than anticipated.

253 Risk that existing conditions of Caltrans-owned bridges will not support bridge barriers. The existing bridge conditions and structural systems are unknown and may not support mounting new work • Design exceptions necessary w/ Caltrans • History of slow response time w/ Caltrans • Contractor is responsible for design, approval, and fabrication • Risk is inability to make attachments to bridge due to bridge being in some state of disrepair Overhead bridge barriers need to be attached to existing bridges. Structural condition of bridge is unknown resulting in technical difficulties in attaching the barrier to the bridge.

Delays while negotiating and executing an operation and maintenance agreement for equipment installed on bridges; induced current has potential to corrode bridge resulting in additional costs to PCEP.

78 Need for unanticipated, additional ROW for new signal enclosures.

Delay while procuring ROW and additional ROW costs.





154 Potential for encountering unidentified or unknown private crossings along the corridor. Could impose unanticipated rights or requirements on the design.

Additional cost and time to acquire ROW by condemnation.

171 Electrification facilities could be damaged during testing.

Delay in commencing electrified operations.

195 Introduction of electrified train service will require training of first responders in working in and around the rail corridor. The new vehicles will be considerably quieter than the existing fleet and the presence of high voltage power lines will require new procedures for emergency response. A new training program will need to be developed and disseminated for: • Fire, police, and first responders • Local communities • Schools

Safety hazards resulting in incidents that delay construction and increase labor cost. Delays in RSD until training is completed as requirement of safety certification process.

251 Subcontractor and supplier performance to meet aggressive schedule. • Potential issue meeting Buy America requirements

Delay to production schedule resulting in increased soft costs and overall project schedule delay.

271 Need for additional construction easements beyond that which has been provided for Contractor proposed access and staging.


272 Final design based upon actual Geotech conditions.

Could require changes.

288 Independent checker finds errors in signal design and technical submittals.


289 Coordination and delivery of permanent power for power drops for everything except traction power substations along alignment.

Can't test resulting in delays to schedule and associated additional project costs.

291 Order/manufacture of long lead items prior to 100% IFC design document that proves to be incorrect.

Design change and/or delays.





292 A large Uninterrupted Power Supply will be required. There is a risk it will not fit in the spaces allotted to do communications work within the buildings.

Additional cost to provide more space.

19 Potential for vehicle delivery to be hampered by international conflict; market disruption; labor strikes at production facility.

Delay in production of vehicle with associated cost implications.

42 Full complement of EMUs not available upon initiation of electrified revenue service.

Late delivery impacts revenue service date.

150 Number of OCS pole installation is significant. Any breakdown in sequencing of operations or coordination of multiple crews will have a substantial effect on the project.

Delay to Balfour contract.

245 Failure of BBI to submit quality design and technical submittals in accordance with contract requirements. • $3-$5M/month burn rate for Owner’s teamduring peak

Delays to project schedule and additional costs for preparation and review of submittals.

252 Failure of BBI to order/manufacture long lead items prior to 100% IFC design document approval by JPB.

Delays to project schedule and additional cost for contractor and JPB staff time.

264 Design coordination with other capital improvement projects is required.

Rework resulting in cost increases and schedule delays.

10 Delays in parts supply chain result in late completion of vehicles.

Delay in obtaining parts / components. Cost increases. (See Owner for allocation of costs.) Schedule increase - 3 months. (See Owner for allocation of damages associated with this Risk.)

12 Potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) to private facilities with sensitive electronic equipment caused by vehicles.

Increased cost due to mitigation. Potential delay due to public protests or environmental challenge.





50 Leadership and / or key personnel changes with car builder results in delays to completion of design and manufacture of vehicles.

Cost Increase. Schedule Increase – not supported by a TIA.

51 Damage during delivery of first six EMUs. Schedule delay.

54 Infrastructure not ready for vehicles (OCS, TPS, Commissioning site / facility).

Increases cost if done off property.

69 Potential need for additional construction easements. Especially for access and laydown areas. Contractor could claim project is not constructible and needs more easements after award.

Increased cost. Delay.

87 Unanticipated HazMat or contaminated hot spots encountered during foundation excavations for poles, TPSS, work at the yards.

Increased cost for clean-up and handling of materials and delay to schedule due to HazMat procedures.

93 Unanticipated subsurface conditions affecting pole or TPSS installation.

Delay to take actions to remedy conditions or relocate foundations. Increased cost for design and construction of remediation.

106 Potential that DB contractor will have insufficient field resources (personnel or equipment) to maintain aggressive schedule. Multiple segments will need to be under design simultaneously. Labor pool issue. 32 qualified linemen will be needed. Potential there is not enough available. Big storm damage anywhere in US will draw from the pool to make line repairs. Possible shortages with other specialty crafts as well.

Delay.





136 UPRR agreement. Operator performance. Potential to violate agreements with UP, which could have financial consequences. Would affect UP's ability to operate.

146 Wayside signal / pole adjustments to avoid sighting distance problems.

Change order.

148 Potential impact to advancing construction within the vicinity of any cultural finds that are excavated.

Minor disruption of the construction work.

151 Public could raise negative concerns regarding wheel/rail noise.

Increased cost to mitigate: • Grind rails • Reprofile wheels • Sound walls

182 Compliance with Buy America requirements for 3rd party utility relocations. • Utility relocations covered under existing Caltrain agreements that require utilities to move that will not have effect on project cost - will not be Buy America • Installation of new equipment inside PG&E substations that will provide all PG&E customers, about 1/6 of that provides power to our system - is upgrade that benefits all customers subject to Buy America requirements, is it 1/6th, or 100% • Risk is substation not relocations • Substation equipment is available domestically, has 6 month longer lead time and increased cost of 20%

Increased cost. Delay.

189 EMUs will need I-ITCS equipment that is compatible with wayside equipment. Same supplier thereby reducing the risk.

Could drive up price because the car builder may not be a priority customer.

192 Environmental compliance during construction. Failure to meet the commitments contained within the PCEP EA, FEIR and permit conditions.

Delay. Cost increase.





237 JPB needs and agreement with each city in which catenary will be strung over an existing grade crossing (17 in all) under GO 88 (grade crossings). These agreements must be executed subsequent to installing overhead catenary. JPB is preparing a response to CPUC while working with the cities. Delays in reaching agreement could have impacts on schedule and budget.

Not completing the grade crossing diagnostics and getting agreement from the cities on the results can result in delays to necessary approvals for the project and revenue service.

248 3rd party coordination • Jurisdictions, Utilities, UP, Contractors • D/B needs to provide timely information to facilitate 3rd party coordination • Risk is for construction

Delays in approvals resulting in project schedule delays and associated costs.

249 Coordination and delivery of permanent power for power drops along alignment.

Delays in completion of construction and testing with associated increase in costs.

254 Potential that bridge clearance data are inaccurate and that clearances are not sufficient for installation of catenary.

Results in additional design and construction to create sufficient clearance.

269 Potholing unearths the fact that pole locations conflict with utilities. OCS pole or structure locations as designed by Contractor conflict with utilities where conflict could have been avoided by allowable final design adjustments.


273 Contractor generates new hazardous materials, necessitates proper removal and disposal of existing hazardous materials identified in the Contract for D-B remediation.

Delay to construction while removing and disposing of hazardous materials resulting in schedule delay, increased construction costs, and schedule delay costs.

274 JPB as-built drawings and existing infrastructure to be used as basis of final design and construction is not correct

Additional cleanup of as-builts after PCEP construction.

275 DB fails to verify as-built drawings and existing infrastructure.

Additional cleanup of as-builts after PCEP construction.

278 Failure of D/B contractor and subcontractors and suppliers to meet Buy America requirements.

Delays while acceptable materials are procured and additional costs for delays and purchase of duplicative equipment.





282 Failure to maintain dynamic envelope and existing track clearances consistent with requirements.

Redesign entailing cost and schedule impacts.

283 Fluctuation in foreign currency v US dollar. Increase in costs.

284 Compliance with project labor agreement could result in inefficiencies in staffing of construction.

Increase in labor costs and less efficient construction resulting in schedule delays.

290 Delays in agreement and acceptance of initial VVSC requirements database.

Delay to design acceptance.

293 Readiness of 115kV interconnect for temporary power to support testing.

Delay in testing.



Appendix G – MMRP Status Log October 31, 2017

Appendix G – MMRP Status Log



Appendix G – MMRP Status Log G-1 October 31, 2017

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

AES-2a: Minimize OCS construction activity on residential and park areas outside the Caltrain ROW.

X X Ongoing

The OCS proposed construction schedule has been provided to the JPB. OCS construction began the week of October 2, 2017. The D-B has used the potholing process to assist in locating conflicts in the 35% design and attempting to relocate OCS pole locations within the ROW, thereby avoiding parks and residential areas.

AES-2b: Aesthetic treatments for OCS poles, TPFs in sensitive visual locations, and Overbridge Protection Barriers.

X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure have been implemented as described, and coordination with the specific jurisdictions regarding pole colors and design is ongoing.

AES-4a: Minimize spillover light during nighttime construction.

X Ongoing

OCS construction began the week of October 2, 2017. The BBI community relations lead has notified nearby residents of upcoming construction. During construction, lighting is faced inward, towards the railroad tracks, and any complaints will be documented and addressed by the BBI community relations lead.

AES-4b: Minimize light spillover at TPFs.

X Upcoming The design requirements indicated in the measure are being used in the design process of the TPFs.

AQ-2a: Implement BAAQMD basic and additional construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related dust.

X X Ongoing

The Dust Mitigation Plan was submitted to the JPB. The requirements in the Dust Mitigation Plan will be implemented throughout the construction period and documented in daily reports.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

AQ-2b: Implement BAAQMD basic and additional construction mitigation measures to control construction-related ROG and NOX emissions.

X X Ongoing

The Equipment Emissions Control Plan was submitted to the JPB. The requirements in the Equipment Emissions Control Plan will be implemented throughout the construction period and documented in daily reports.

AQ-2c: Utilize clean diesel-powered equipment during construction to control construction-related ROG and NOX emissions.

X X Ongoing

The Equipment Emissions Control Plan was submitted to the JPB. The requirements in the Equipment Emissions Control Plan will be implemented throughout the construction period and documented in daily reports.

BIO-1a: Implement general biological impact avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Worker Environmental Awareness Training is provided to all project-related personnel before they work on the project. All measures as described will be implemented throughout the construction period and documented in daily reports.

BIO-1b: Implement special-status plant species avoidance and revegetation measures.

X X X Complete

Not applicable. Subsequent habitat assessment and avoidance of Communication Hill eliminated any potential to affect special-status plant species. The measure is not needed.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

BIO-1c: Implement California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Pre-construction surveys are occurring no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction activities nearby/adjacent to potential habitat for CRLF and SFGS. The Wildlife Exclusion Fencing Plan was submitted and approved by the wildlife agencies, and installation and monitoring of wildlife exclusion fencing is ongoing. No CRLF / SFGS or sign of each species has been observed to date on the Project.

BIO-1d: Implement western pond turtle avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Pre-construction surveys are occurring no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction activities nearby/adjacent to potential habitat for WPT. No WPT or WPT sign have been observed to date on the Project.

BIO-1e: Implement Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, hoary bat, and fringed myotis avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Pre-construction surveys are occurring no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction activities with the potential to disturb bats or their habitat. No special-status bats or sign have been observed to date on the Project.

BIO-1f: Implement western burrowing owl avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Protocol surveys for Western Burrowing Owl were conducted from April 2017 through July 2017 at previously identified potentially suitable habitat locations. Note that all of these locations are in Construction Segment 4 (southern Santa Clara and San Jose). No Burrowing Owls were observed during the surveys. Construction in Segment 4 is not anticipated to occur until 2018, at which time, pre-construction surveys of the potential habitat areas will occur no more





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

than 7 days prior to the onset of construction activities.

BIO-1g: Implement northern harrier, white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, purple martin, and other nesting bird avoidance measures.

X X Ongoing

Nesting Bird surveys were conducted from February 1 through September 15, 2017 prior to project-related activities with the potential to impact nesting birds. No active nests were observed during this reporting period. Nesting Bird surveys will be initiated again on February 1, 2018.

BIO-1h: Conduct biological resource survey of future contractor-determined staging areas.

X X Ongoing

The agency-approved Qualified Biologist has conducted a survey of the proposed staging area to be used for construction activities planned for the remainder of 2017. No special-status species, or other potentially sensitive biological resources were observed. The agency-approved Qualified Biologist will continue to survey ahead of the initiation of activities at planned staging areas as the Project moves into new construction areas.

BIO-1i: Minimize impacts on Monarch butterfly overwintering sites.

X X Ongoing

The agency-approved Qualified Biologist has periodically monitored the project limits to evaluate the presence of Monarch butterfly overwintering sites. No Monarch butterfly overwintering sites have been observed on the Project to date.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

BIO-1j: Avoid nesting birds and bats during vegetation maintenance.

X Upcoming To be completed during Project operation.

BIO-2: Implement serpentine bunchgrass avoidance and revegetation measures.

X X X Complete

Not applicable. Subsequent habitat assessment and avoidance of Communication Hill eliminated any potential to affect serpentine bunchgrass. This measure is no longer needed.

BIO-3: Avoid or compensate for impacts on wetlands and waters.

X X X Complete

The JPB has compensated for unavoidable wetland impacts by purchasing adequate credits from a wetlands mitigation bank approved by USACE and SFRWQCB.

BIO-5: Implement Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and Replacement Plan.

X X X Ongoing

Tree removal and pruning activities were initiated in August 2017 under the guidance of the BBI Arborist, and in accordance with the Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and Replacement Plan. Tree Removal and Pruning status is provided to the JPB on a weekly basis.

BIO-6: Pay Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan land cover fee (if necessary).

X Complete

Not applicable. The SCVHP does not apply to the Project because TPS2, Option 1 was not selected and OCS does not extend to Communication Hill. This measure is not needed.

CUL-1a: Evaluate and minimize impacts on structural integrity of historic tunnels.

X Upcoming To be implemented prior to construction in tunnels.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

CUL-1b: Minimize impacts on historic decorative tunnel material.


CUL-1c: Install project facilities in a way that minimizes impacts on historic tunnel interiors.


CUL-1d: Implement design commitments at historic railroad stations

X Complete

The Qualified Architectural Historian completed and submitted the HABS Level III documents to the JPB for all seven of the historic stations. Pole placement has been designed to minimize the visual impact to historic stations.

CUL-1e: Implement specific tree mitigation considerations at two potentially historic properties and landscape recordation, as necessary.

X X Complete

It was determined that the project is not acquiring any ROW at either of the subject properties so all tree effects would be within the JPB ROW. Therefore, the APE does not include these two historic properties. This measure is no longer needed.

CUL-1f: Implement historic bridge and underpass design requirements.

X Ongoing

This measure is being implemented as described during the design process and will be incorporated into the final design. The four bridges that are included in the MMRP are rail bridges crossing over another feature. Design of the OCS system is taking into account that there are requirements that restrict the design. Thus far, the





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

designs for Construction Segments 2 & 4 are in process and designs are not yet complete. The D-B will forward to the Architectural Historian once complete.

CUL-2a: Conduct an archaeological resource survey and/or monitoring of the removal of pavement or other obstructions to determine if historical resources under CEQA or unique archaeological resources under PRC 21083.2 are present.

X Ongoing

Periodic inspections of ground surface areas along the alignment, in conjunction with cultural monitoring as-needed of project activities in culturally sensitive areas are ongoing. The Archaeological Final Report will be provided at the conclusion of construction activities.

CUL-2b: Conduct exploratory trenching or coring of areas where subsurface project disturbance is planned in those areas with “high” or “very high” potential for buried site.

X Ongoing

Exploratory trenching and subsurface testing of all potentially culturally sensitive areas is occurring prior to the initiation of construction activities in those areas. The results will be included in the Archaeological Final Report. No cultural resources requiring the development of a treatment plan were observed. A Native American monitor has been present for all exploratory trenching and subsurface testing work.

CUL-2c: Conduct limited subsurface testing before performing ground-disturbing work within 50 meters of a known archaeological site.

X Ongoing






Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

CUL-2d: Conduct exploratory trenching or coring of areas within the three zones of special sensitivity where subsurface project disturbance is planned.

X Ongoing


CUL-2e: Stop work if cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

X X Ongoing No prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials have been observed during cultural monitoring.

CUL-2f: Conduct archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities in areas as determined by JPB and SHPO.

X Ongoing

Cultural monitoring as-needed of project activities in culturally sensitive areas is ongoing. The Archaeological Final Report will be provided at the conclusion of construction activities.

CUL-3: Comply with state and county procedures for the treatment of human remains discoveries.

X Ongoing No human remains have been observed to date on the Project.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

EMF-2: Minimize EMI effects during final design, Monitor EMI effects during testing, commission and operations, and Remediate Substantial Disruption of Sensitive Electrical Equipment.

X X X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. Designs are submitted and reviewed/commented on by JPB. Monitoring EMI effects will occur post construction.

GEO-1: Perform a site-specific geotechnical study for traction power facilities.

X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. Geotechnical studies and results are submitted to JPB as completed.

GEO-4a: Identification of expansive soils.

X Ongoing


GEO-4b: Mitigation of expansive soils.

X Ongoing






Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

HAZ-2a: Conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prior to construction.

X Complete

A Phase II Environmental Assessment was completed prior to construction by the JPB consultant, and the results were provided to BBI, and the required mitigation is being implemented prior to the initiation of construction activities.

HAZ-2b: Implement engineering controls and best management practices during construction.

X X Ongoing

Field activities are being monitored daily for significant color changes or odors which may indicate contamination.

HYD-1: Implement construction dewatering treatment, if necessary.

X X Ongoing Facilities & BMPs are in place to deal with this requirement should it arise in the OCS foundations.

HYD-4: Minimize floodplain impacts by minimizing new impervious areas for TPFs or relocating these facilities.

X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. The TPFs in Construction Segments 2 & 4 are currently in design. The design minimizes hardscape only to required structure foundations; yard areas are to receive a pervious material.

HYD-5: Provide for electrical safety at TPFs subject to periodic or potential flooding.

X X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. The TPFs in Construction Segments 2 & 4 are currently in design. The design plan currently raises the TPFs above the floodplain.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

HYD-7: Implement sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan.

X Upcoming This measure has not yet been initiated.

NOI-1a: Implement Construction Noise Control Plan.

X X Ongoing

The Noise and Vibration Control Plan has been submitted and is being implemented. Field activity is monitored per the Plan. If allowable noise levels are near or exceed allowable noise levels, mitigation such as blankets are used from that point forward.

NOI-1b: Conduct site-specific acoustical analysis of ancillary facilities based on the final mechanical equipment and site design and implement noise control treatments where required.

X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. Design is still in process.

NOI-2a: Implement Construction Vibration Control Plan.

X X Ongoing

The Noise and Vibration Control Plan has been submitted and is being implemented. Field activity is monitored per the Plan.

PSU-8a: Provide continuous coordination with all utility providers.

X X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure will be implemented through the final design as described. Coordination with utility providers is ongoing and there have not been any service interruptions thus far.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

PSU-8b: Adjust OCS pole foundation locations.

X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described.

PSU-8c: Schedule and notify users about potential service interruptions.

X X Ongoing

The design requirements indicated in the measure are being implemented through the final design as described. There have not been any service interruptions thus far.

PSU-9: Require application of relevant construction mitigation measures to utility relocation and transmission line construction by others.

X X Ongoing

JPB has initiated coordination with PG&E regarding transmission line construction. Construction has not begun.

TRA-1a: Implement Construction Road Traffic Control Plan.

X X Upcoming

The D-B has begun traffic control design and permit applications with the City of Millbrae. Other communities will follow.

TRA-1c: Implement signal optimization and roadway geometry improvements at impacted intersections for the 2020 Project Condition.

X X Upcoming This measure has not started





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

TRA-2a: Implement construction railway disruption control plan.

X X Ongoing Minimization of railway disruption is being coordinated by the Site Specific Work Plan.

TRA-3b: In cooperation with the City and County of San Francisco, implement surface pedestrian facility improvements to address the Proposed Project’s additional pedestrian movements at and immediately adjacent to the San Francisco 4th and King Station.

X X X Upcoming This measure has not started.

TRA-4b: Continue to improve bicycle facilities at Caltrain stations and partner with bike share programs where available following guidance in Caltrain‘s Bicycle Access and Parking Plan.

X Upcoming This measure will be implemented during project operation.

NOI-CUMUL-1: Implement a phased program to reduce cumulative train noise along the Caltrain corridor as necessary to address future cumulative noise increases over FTA thresholds


NOI-CUMUL-2: Conduct project-level vibration analysis for Blended System operations and implement vibration reduction measures as necessary and appropriate for the Caltrain corridor

X In Progress

CHSRA is conducting this analysis as part of the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose section.





Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Timing

Status Status Notes

Pre

-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Po

st-

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Op

era

tio

n

TRA-CUMUL-1: Implement a phased program to provide traffic improvements to reduce traffic delays near at-grade crossings and Caltrain stations


TRA-CUMUL-2: Implement technical solution to allow electric trolley bus transit across 16th Street without OCS conflicts in cooperation with SFMTA.

X Complete

Not applicable. SFMTA has elected to not electrify the 16th Street crossing. This measure no longer applies.

Mitigation Measure TRA-CUMUL-3: As warranted, Caltrain and freight operators will partner to provide Plate H clearance as feasible between San Jose and Bayshore.


of 4

AGENDA ITEM # 9 DECEMBER 7, 2017



Executive Director

FROM: Michelle Bouchard, Chief Operating Officer, Caltrain

SUBJECT: CALTRAIN BUSINESS PLAN - DRAFT BUSINESS STRATEGY AND SCOPE ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board receive and review the attached draft Business Strategy Principles and Draft Caltrain Business Plan Scope of Work SIGNIFICANCE Caltrain staff has prepared two draft documents (attached) for the Board’s initial review along with a presentation describing their contents. The two documents include:

• A set of draft policy principles comprising a “Business Strategy” that will help guide the further development of the Caltrain Business Plan

• A draft Scope of Work that describes the tasks and technical analysis required to complete the Caltrain Business Plan

Pending the Board’s review and comments, staff will revise these documents and return to the Board in January to request their formal adoption. This action would launch “phase 2” of the Caltrain Business Plan. Following the Board’s adoption of the “Business Strategy” and Business Plan Scope, the Business Plan would take approximately one year to complete. The schedule for proposed Board updates and action is shown below:

● January 2018: Proposed Board Action- adopt the “Business Strategy” policy principles and the Scope of Work for the Business Plan (Attachments 1 and 2) along with any corresponding funding agreements or budget amendments.

● Spring 2018: Proposed Board informational update on Tasks 1 and 2 from the Scope of Work. The Board will be presented with analysis of potential markets and strategic opportunities for rail service on the Peninsula Corridor out to 2040 (Task 1) Staff will also present the specific Service Vision scenarios that are being evaluated for how the Caltrain service and corridor could grow between 2022 and 2040 (Task 2A). Finally, staff will report on preliminary findings regarding a structural assessment of the Caltrain organization as well as a preliminary analysis of the community benefits, impacts and interface related to the development and evolution of the railroad (Tasks 2B and 2C).

of 4

● Summer 2018: o Proposed Board Action: Adopt a long range “Service Vision” for the

Caltrain corridor including number of trains per hour, mix of express and local services, stopping patterns and desired connectivity to the regional, interregional and state rail network. The Service Vision will define:

▪ A pathway of incremental, interim steps and timeframes to evolve from current service levels to the 2040 Service Vision, and

▪ Preliminary performance targets for Caltrain service including ridership, service characteristics, costs and revenues.

o Proposed Board Action: The Board will be presented with analyses that show how the Service Vision will drive infrastructure needs in the corridor and how these needs will influence other plans and projects throughout the region. The Board may then choose to direct Caltrain staff to use the Service Vision as the planning basis for engaging with other local, regional and state projects going forward.

o Proposed Board Action: The Board will be presented with analyses from

Task 2B showing how the Caltrain organization currently functions and review comparative examples of organizational structures used by railways elsewhere. The Board may then choose to direct staff to develop an “organizational strategy” that shows options for how the Caltrain organization could evolve (in coordination with input and direction from the JPB partners) to support the 2040 Service Vision.

o Proposed Board Action: Finally, the Board will be presented with analysis

from Task 2C describing how Caltrain’s service creates both benefits and impacts in its surrounding communities. The Board may then choose to direct staff to develop a “community interface strategy” that shows how Caltrain can work with partner jurisdictions and agencies to maximize community benefits and minimize impacts as the Service Vision is implemented over time.

● Fall 2018: Proposed Board informational update on Tasks 3 and 4 from the Scope

of Work. The Board will be presented with additional technical analysis and refinements made to the “Service Vision” and will have the opportunity to provide input on any changed assumptions or new issues that have been identified through subsequent technical analysis. The Board will also be presented with analysis showing how first- and last-mile considerations, fare policy and joint development opportunities are being integrated into the Business Plan (Task 3). Additionally the Board will receive updates on the development of an Organizational Strategy and a Community Interface Strategy and will have the opportunity to provide further direction (Task 3). Finally, the Board will receive preliminary information about the funding strategy underlying Business Plan (Task 4).

of 4

● End of 2018: The Board will be presented with the completed analyses from Tasks 3 and 4 as well as a draft Business Plan document and may then choose to take the following actions:

o Proposed Board Action: Adopt a detailed, refined and optimized Business Plan that includes a year-to-year description of how service in the corridor will grow and change to achieve the 2040 Vision.

▪ The plan will run through 2040 but will include a greater level of detail for the 2022-2032 period.

▪ The Business Plan will identify the timing and nature of required infrastructure projects and fleet purchases along with capital and operating cost projections and targets.

▪ The Business Plan will include refined revenue and ridership projections and targets.

▪ The Business Plan will incorporate planning, policy and business recommendations related to improved customer amenities, fares and ticketing, first- and last-mile connections, and the development of Caltrain owned property. These recommendations will be coordinated with and based on ongoing planning work.

▪ The Business Plan will include a full funding strategy and a defined implementation program

o Proposed Board Action: Review the Organizational Strategy prepared by staff and recommend next steps in conjunction with input from Caltrain’s partners

o Proposed Board Action: Review the Community Interface Strategy prepared by staff and recommend next steps in conjunction with input from Caltrain’s partners and local jurisdictions

BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact on the budget at this time. When staff presents a final scope of work to the Board for adoption it will be accompanied by any associated funding agreements or required budget amendments. BACKGROUND In 2017 Caltrain secured full funding for the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project and issued notices to proceed to its contractors. Now that construction on this long-awaited project has begun, the agency has the opportunity to articulate a long term business strategy for the future of the system. The initial concept for a Caltrain “Business Plan” was brought to the Board in April of 2017 and the Board was provided with a subsequent written update in July of 2017. The Board formed an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to focus on the Business Plan in August of 2017.

Since that time staff has engaged with corridor stakeholders to discuss the future of the railroad. These interactions culminated in September 2017 with an all-day stakeholder workshop focused on the “future of Caltrain.”

of 4

The workshop was attended by: general managers and staff from Caltrain’s funding partners and peer agencies, state officials, city councilmembers, and members of the business and advocacy communities. The workshop was also attended by the four Caltrain Board members who comprise the Caltrain Business Plan Ad Hoc Committee. Participants were asked to envision the future they wanted for the railroad and to consider the challenges and obstacles that might stall or prevent the realization of that vision. Following the workshop staff has worked to develop a technical scope of work for the Business Plan that responds to the issues and ideas raised. Staff has also continued conversations with corridor stakeholders to raise awareness of the Business Plan effort. Notable outreach has included discussion with local, state and federal elected officials. Prepared by: Sebastian Petty, Senior Policy Advisor 650.622.7831

Attachment 1: Proposed Caltrain “Business Strategy” Policy Principles

The following broad principles have been developed based on stakeholder outreach conducted during Phase 1 of the Business Plan. They are proposed for Board adoption as policy principles that will be used to guide the development of the Caltrain Business Plan:

• Caltrain’s core business is rail service. The Caltrain organization exists to manage the delivery of rail service, as well as the assets, infrastructure and ancillary activities that are required to support that delivery.

• Today Caltrain provides a commuter rail service that primarily serves weekday commuters and special event attendees. After electrification, Caltrain will face choices about how best to expand and tailor its service to support a much broader range of mobility markets. The primary task of the Business Plan is to aid in the selection of a detailed, achievable Service Vision for Caltrain that provides maximum value to its customers. The development of this Service Vision will require an understanding of the near-, medium and long term market for rail service in the corridor and an analysis of the different service approaches that could satisfy these demands. A “business case” approach to the analysis of service options will allow ridership and other mobility benefits to be weighed against costs and infrastructure requirements.

• The Caltrain corridor has a complex interface with the communities it traverses. The implementation of new services and infrastructure on the corridor will create a range of community benefits, opportunities and impacts. The Business Plan can address this reality by exploring economic, policy and technical approaches that will allow Caltrain to strategically and equitably manage its interface with communities in a way that minimizes impacts, generates value, and supports the Service Vision.

• Finally, the selection of a Service Vision will influence how the Caltrain organization evolves over time. Caltrain’s organizational, governance, and commercial and contracting strategies will be evaluated as part of a comprehensive structural assessment of what is needed to deliver value and support the long term success of the Service Vision.

of 8

Attachment 2: Draft Business Plan Scope of Work

Background: The following pages present a high level draft scope of work for the Caltrain Business Plan along with a description of outreach plans, project management structure, budget and potential funding sources. The scope and project management portions of this document are presented for review and comment and will ultimately be proposed for Board adoption. The scope has been written at a level of detail that describes the general organization, purpose and proposed outputs of individual project tasks while leaving flexibility to accommodate a range of detailed technical approaches and adaptation based on changing project needs and expert input. Subsequent to adoption, staff will return to the Board if a material deviation from the scope is anticipated or requested. More detailed technical work scopes for individual tasks and plan components will be developed and provided to the JPB’s Caltrain Business Plan Ad Hoc committee for their review and comment throughout the Business Plan process.

Task 1- The “Strategic Case” for Caltrain Rail infrastructure investments have decades-long lifespans and the Business Plan will have a long range outlook. The Plan will begin by defining the potential markets and strategic opportunities for rail service on the Peninsula Corridor through 2040 (a horizon year that is consistent with the California State Rail Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan). The “Strategic Case” for Caltrain will present an analysis of current and projected demographic, economic development and travel pattern trends in the corridor, region and mega-region. In doing so it will frame the strategic importance of the Caltrain corridor and its role in supporting the long term growth and mobility of the region. The “Strategic Case” will also consider Caltrain’s “competitors” including the ability of the Bay Area’s freeway network to accommodate projected growth in travel demand as well as a discussion of how autonomous vehicles and other emerging technologies might shape Caltrain’s long term market outlook and business approach. Finally, in addition to defining the strategic importance of the corridor and reviewing local and regional market opportunities, the Strategic Case will also contextualize the long term development potential of the Caltrain corridor relative to other, comparable national and international rail corridors.

Task 2A - Service Business Case Analysis Task 2A will involve the development of multiple “scenarios” or “evolutionary paths” showing how the Caltrain service and corridor could grow between 2022 and 2040. The work will start with operational analysis to understand how many trains per hour could run on the corridor in 2040, how local and express services could be balanced, where trains could stop and how they could connect to a larger state and megaregional rail network.

of 8

This operational analysis will pay particular attention to the blending of Caltrain service with High Speed Rail service as well as the operations and infrastructure outcomes at the North Terminal (4th and King and DTX/ TTC), a potential Dumbarton rail interface at Redwood City, at the South Terminal (including San Jose Diridon Station) and in the southern portion of the corridor stretching from San Jose to Gilroy. From there, the project team will analyze the range of ridership and benefits associated with each service scenario, the infrastructure and fleet that would be required to deliver the service, and the kinds of costs and impacts the service would create. Finally, the team will analyze the incremental service steps and infrastructure investments that make up different “evolutionary paths” for how Caltrain could grow over time from its current service, through electrification and into each of the ultimate 2040 scenarios contemplated. This full set of analysis will be used to develop “Business Cases” around each scenario, laying out the cumulative set of costs and benefits associated with each “evolutionary path” that Caltrain could take. In the summer of 2018 staff will present this analysis to the Board to aid in the selection of a single (or non-exclusive combination of) service scenarios as the basis for a “Service Vision.”

Task 2B – Organizational Assessment In parallel to Task 2A the technical team will also work on Task 2B; a structural assessment of the “Caltrain Organization.” Within the context of the Business Plan the term “Caltrain Organization” is used broadly to encompass the total set of present and future governance structures, organizations, staff and contracted entities responsible for the funding, direction and delivery of the Caltrain service as well as the construction and maintenance of the corridor’s facilities. Within Task 2B, the technical team will map the existing Caltrain organization and identify key performance indicators and measures to help describe and quantify how the Caltrain organization functions and its effectiveness at delivering value for money spent. The plan will then include a comparative analysis of peer railways and organizations both locally, domestically and internationally, reviewing alternative approaches to how a railway can be organized. Finally, Task 2B will include a high level analysis of how organizational needs may change in tandem with the long rang service scenarios under consideration in Task 2A. This information will be presented to Caltrain’s partners and the Board in the summer of 2018 with a request that they provide feedback on the subsequent development of options for an “Organizational Strategy” that could support the delivery of the Service Vision. Task 2C – Community Interface Assessment Along with Tasks 2A and 2B, the technical team will also conduct an analysis of the railroad’s community interface and an assessment of equity considerations related to the development and evolution of the railroad.

of 8

Much as in the preceding tasks, the focus of Task 2C will be the development of an analytical and policy framework that assists staff and stakeholders in understanding and quantifying issues related to community interface and equity considerations. This work will include a description and quantified framework for thinking about the major ways in which the railroad and its services add value to individual communities and the region as a whole including improved environmental outcomes and impacts to land values. The project team will also document and quantify the ways in which the railroad creates externalized costs and impacts in its surrounding communities including noise and vibration and safety and traffic impacts at at-grade crossings. In documenting these benefits and impacts the project team will specifically consider equity issues- focusing on the potential for different geographies or demographic groups to be affected unequally as the railroad changes and grows. Finally, the project team will consider and conduct more detailed analysis related to two major known community interface issues; the impacts of increased rail service on at-grade crossings and the potential for development and change at specific Caltrain land holdings and opportunity sites along the corridor. This information will be presented to Caltrain’s partners, local jurisdictions and the Board in the summer of 2018 with a request that they provide feedback on the subsequent development of a “Community Interface Strategy” that could support the delivery of the Service Vision. Task 3- Developing the Business Plan Based on the Board’s adoption of a long range Service Vision in the summer of 2018, the project team will work to translate the Vision into a focused, long range business plan that will be presented to the Board for review and proposed adoption at the end of the year. The technical scope for the second half of the business plan is necessarily looser at this early stage in the project but will include the core elements described below. First, the project team will conduct additional technical work and modeling to optimize, validate and add detail to the adopted Service Vision. Additional operational and infrastructure analysis will be employed to help the Board further consider the incremental options for growing the railroad over time along with the service trade-offs and investments that may be required. Further financial and ridership modeling will also be conducted to validate the costs, revenues and benefits of specific investments in the Caltrain corridor and service. This analysis will place a particular focus on the investments and strategies that can be employed to optimize the first 10-years of the electrified system’s operation. In seeking to optimize the overall “business case” for Caltrain service, the project team will also expand the range of issues considered. The team will review ancillary business strategies and options to generate revenue and add customer value and will incorporate ongoing planning work related to first- and last-mile connections and joint development as well fares and retailing strategies into the analysis of service benefits and financial performance.

The technical team will also develop an “organizational strategy” based on the Board’s mid-year feedback and ongoing input from Caltrain partner agencies.

of 8

This strategy may include analysis and recommendations related to potential options for how the Caltrain organization could change and grow in conjunction with the evolution of Caltrain’s service and may also include recommendations related to Caltrain’s contracting and commercial approach. The strategy will be supported by appropriate legal, regulatory and financial analysis and will be framed using the organizational evaluation criteria developed in Task 2 of the Business Plan. The organizational strategy will also be designed to demonstrate how Caltrain can organize to most effectively access and use financial resources. This may include options for optimizing the organization to take full advantage of both existing and contemplated revenue and funding streams including new funding sources, value capture strategies, and private investment. Finally, the organizational strategy will describe a series of next steps, options and issues for discussion that Caltrain may pursue in coordination with its funding partners and other regional and state agencies. The technical team will also develop a “community interface strategy” as part of the final Business Plan. It is anticipated that this Strategy may include a detailed, quantified assessment of the secondary community impacts and benefits that will be created through the implementation of the Service Vision. It may also include a discussion of options for how Caltrain could work with partner communities to best leverage and maximize the value its service creates including recommendations related to value capture, joint development and use of Caltrain-owned property. The strategy may also include recommendations for how Caltrain can mitigate the impacts of increased rail service on communities and how the timing of these mitigations could relate to the build out and realization of the Service Vision. In the case of impacts at at-grade crossings, recommended mitigations could include analysis of new and innovative policy approaches designed to maximize public benefit and utilize resources equitably and efficiently. Finally, the community interface strategy may include specific options and recommendations for how Caltrain can improve and address equity outcomes, both among its customers as well as within the communities it traverses, as it implements the Service Vision.

Task 4- Funding and Implementation The Business Plan will conclude with a detailed funding plan that shows how the recommendations and investments identified can be paid for. This funding plan will show how the agency can use self-generated revenues and leverage its assets to deliver maximum customer benefit and public value. Where new sources of outside funding may be needed, the plan will present choices and analysis of specific measures, value capture approaches or public-private partnering strategies that could be used effectively. This funding plan will be paired with a consolidated implementation plan that makes detailed, specific recommendations about actions and next steps required to advance the Service Vision and Business Plan. This implementation plan will be specifically focused on the actions Caltrain may to take in the next five years and will also describe issues where partnering with local communities and Caltrain partner agencies or other government agencies may be required.

of 8

Education and Outreach Plan The Business Plan will be a complex effort that touches on issues that are of wide interest to Caltrain’s customers as well as a range of stakeholders and publics within and beyond the Caltrain corridor. A robust program of education and outreach will accompany the technical work of the Business Plan. The complexity of the Business Plan requires the development of thoughtful educational materials that help explain the connections between abstract technical and policy choices and the real world outcomes that Caltrain’s customers and communities care about. The project team will develop an excellent dedicated website and set of written and visual communication tools that help explain the work of the Business Plan in a format that is engaging to a wide audience and helps facilitate meaningful, informed discussion of the policy issues under consideration. These educational tools will provide the foundation for a deep program of public and stakeholder outreach. During the Business Plan process Caltrain will engage with its customers and the public along the entire corridor through community meetings, station-based outreach, customer and community surveying, and tradional/social media. The project team will also seek to coordinate with partner meetings and community events throughout the corridor to amplify the outreach campaign’s penetration to customers and the public.

In addition to customer and broader public outreach, the project team will also engage with stakeholder staff and policy makers at the local, state and federal levels. Caltrain’s City and County Staff Coordinating Group and Local Policy makers Group are named within the project structure as subsequently shown. These regular meetings will be supplemented by additional direct outreach to local jurisdiction policy makers and staff as requested or when specific technical considerations will benefit from locally focused discussion. The project team anticipates quarterly outreach to state and federal policy makers to make sure they are informed of the Business Plan’s progress and have an opportunity to provide feedback and input. Caltrain’s partner agencies and staff are included within the formal project structure of the Business Plan (as subsequently described). Additionally, however, Caltrain will update its partners on a regular basis and plans to present Business Plan materials to partner agency Boards as well as County Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco at key moments in the project or as requested. Finally, the project team will engage with corridor business groups and advocacy organizations whose mission and goals intersect with subjects and issues considered in the Business Plan. Some business and advocacy groups will be represented in the formal project structure (as shown) but the project team will also engage in sustained, direct outreach to these and other groups throughout the Business Plan process.

of 8

Project Structure The work of the Business Plan will be developed within the project structure shown and described below.

Internal Structure: Within the Caltrain organization, the Caltrain Business Plan will be managed as an integrated project structure reporting directly to Caltrain’s Executive Director Jim Hartnett. The Internal Project Team will be led by Sebastian Petty, Senior Policy Advisor and full-time project manager. The project manager will be supported by a cross-disciplinary internal team of executives and staff representing key functions and competencies within the Caltrain organization. Project Partner and Stakeholder Committees: The Project Partner Committee will meet monthly and will include staff representatives from JPA member agencies as we as all of the Business Plan’s funding entities or their designees. The Project Partner Committee will provide input on ongoing project technical work and outreach materials and will serve as liaisons to their respective organizations.

of 8

The Project Partner Committee will be a subset of a larger project stakeholder committee. This larger stakeholder group will meet approximately four times during the project and will participate in the review of technical and outreach materials. The stakeholder committee will include all Project Partner Committee members as well as representatives from the following:

● Staff from JPA member agencies (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), SamTrans)

● Staff from funding partners (Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTC), California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA)

● Local Jurisdiction Representatives ● Business Community Representatives ● Advocacy Group Representatives

Partner General Manager Group: On an approximately quarterly basis or in advance of major project milestones Jim Hartnett will convene a meeting of the General Managers of Caltrain’s partner agencies (including JPB member agencies as well as MTC, CHSRA and an appropriate designee from CalSTA) to discuss project findings and review materials. External Review: The “External Review Committee” will be comprised of an academic panel and/or designated industry group (such as APTA or the International Union of Railways). This committee will be charged with developing an independent, written review of Business Plan materials at least two times during the Plan process. These reviews will be provided directly to the JPB as well as to Caltrain’s partner agencies and the project stakeholder group. Local Policy Makers Group and City/County Staff Coordinating Group: The project team anticipates utilizing Caltrain’s Local Policy Maker’s Group and City / County Staff Coordinating Group as a venue for important feedback from local jurisdictions with updates to these groups occurring on a bi-monthly basis. It is proposed that each of these groups be expanded beyond their current composition of jurisdictions from San Francisco to San Jose to also include policy makers and staff from the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Board Involvement: The JPB has established an Ad Hoc Committee to guide the development of the Business Plan. This Committee will meet on an approximately monthly basis for the duration of the Business Plan process and will review all major project materials and deliverables before their release to the public or introduction to the full Board. The Board will also receive reports from Caltrain’s Citizen Advisory Committee (the CAC). The CAC will receive regular project updates throughout the Business Plan process paralleling the project updates that go to the JPB.

of 8

It is proposed that the full JPB will take action on the Business Strategy, Service Vision and Business Plan as described previously.

It is anticipated that the Board will receive major informational updates during the spring and fall 2018 and will also hold at least one informational half-day workshop (likely timed for early summer 2018, prior to the proposed adoption of the Service Vision).

Budget Estimate and Funding Proposal: The Business Plan has been scoped as a large-scale, rigorous effort that must simultaneously address multiple lines of specialized technical inquiry while supporting detailed engagement with multiple stakeholder communities and the public. It will be resource intensive. Staff estimates that the total cost for consultant services on the Business Plan (including technical work, outreach, independent review, project management and contingency) will be approximately $5,000,000. The estimated cost to complete the first half of the Business Plan (including Tasks 1 and 2) is $2,175,000. Staff anticipates that funding for the business plan will come from a variety of potential sources including already budgeted Caltrain project development funds, JPB partner contributions, regional contributions, state funding and private contributions. It is anticipated that some contributions may come as in-kind consultant support rather than direct financial contributions. It is also anticipated that the project will be cash-flowed and that not all funding will be secured before work commences. Staff is engaged in various conversations related to funding opportunities and timing and anticipates returning to the Board with a defined funding plan in January.

of 2

AGENDA ITEM #10 DECEMBER 7, 2017



Executive Director

FROM: Michelle Bouchard Chief Operating Officer, Rail

SUBJECT: CALTRAIN FARE STUDY UPDATE ACTION This report is for information only. No Board action is required at this time. SIGNIFICANCE At the December Board meeting, staff will make a presentation to provide an update on key findings from the Fare Study to date and to seek feedback on staff recommendations of draft scenarios with potential changes to Caltrain fares, which will subsequently be tested with Caltrain’s forthcoming Fare Elasticity Model. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact associated with receiving this presentation. The budget for conducting the Fare Study is $250,000. The Fare Study is included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and FY2018 budgets. Budget implications of any recommendations resulting from the Fare Study will be included in the results of the study. BACKGROUND The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) is conducting a Fare Study to identify potential opportunities to maximize revenue, enhance ridership, and safeguard social and geographic equity. There have been multiple discussions with the JPB since August 2016 to seek feedback and receive input. It was discussed that the Fare Study would be conducted in phases and serve to provide updated data and analysis to inform and support potential future fare changes at Caltrain. The first phase of the Fare Study commenced in spring 2017. Staff has provided updates on the progress of the study. In November 2017, staff provided a staff report and attached memo that included draft documents for the Fare Study, including the Purpose and Need for the Fare Study, Existing Conditions, and Research and Peer Comparison.

of 2

Efforts are currently underway to develop the Fare Elasticity Model, which, when complete, will provide insight on the elasticity of the Caltrain system and allow fare scenarios to be modeled and tested for effects on ridership, revenue, and equity. The Fare Elasticity Model is being developed using the results of the rider survey that was administered on-board the trains and online in September 2017. This update will also include:

• Based on the Fare Elasticity Model that is being developed, an estimated demand elasticity of Caltrain riders

• Presentation to summarize the key findings from the draft documents that were distributed to the Board in November, including the Purpose and Need for the Fare Study, Existing Conditions, and Research and Peer Comparison;

• Update on the regional effort to explore development of a means-based fare for low-income Bay Area transit riders

• Presentation of Draft scenarios of potential changes to Caltrain’s fares and staff will seek Board input on the scenarios presented.

Following the December meeting, the testing of draft scenarios of potential fare changes will commence using the Fare Elasticity Model. Draft model results will be presented to the Board for discussion in January 2018. Prepared by: Elizabeth Scanlon, Caltrain Planning Manager 650.295.6867

of 2

13952366.1



STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Harnett Executive Director FROM: April Chan Derek Hansel Chief Officer, Planning Grants and

Transportation Authority Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS TO RECEIVE FUNDING AND ACT

AS PROJECT LEAD FOR THE REDWOOD CITY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT AND AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET FROM $70,473,295 TO $71,323,295.

ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board:

1. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to execute agreements with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City of Redwood City (City) for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) to receive funding and to act as project lead for the Redwood City Grade Separation project (Project);

2. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to file any other required

documentation and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to the resolution; and

3. Amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Capital Budget by $850,000 to increase it from

$70,473,295 to $71,323,295 which will provide the requisite authority to fully implement this Project.

SIGNIFICANCE At its November 2, 2017 meeting, the SMCTA programmed and allocated $750,000 of Measure A Grade Separation Program funds to prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) to explore alternatives for a grade separation of Whipple Avenue, Brewster Avenue and Broadway in the City. The City has also pledged $100,000 in matching funds. Whipple Avenue and adjacent roadways in the vicinity of the existing at-grade crossing are regularly congested during peak periods. Also, several train collisions have occurred with pedestrians and automobiles at the Whipple Avenue crossing. The PSR will identify potential grade separation options as well as potential impacts to the Redwood City Caltrain Station located approximately one half mile to the south.

of 2

13952366.1

BUDGET IMPACT This Project requires an amendment to increase the FY2018 Capital Budget from $70,473,295 to $71,323,295. Funding will come from the City in the amount of $100,000 and another $750,000 will come from SMCTA. Please refer to Attachment A. A funding plan for future phases of work will be developed by the City in cooperation with the JPB and SMCTA. BACKGROUND

The JPB has served as the lead agency for the design and eventual construction of each of the grade separations in San Mateo County at no cost to the JPB. In the last 10 years, the JPB has entered into agreements to serve as lead agency for grade separations in the City of San Bruno, the City of San Mateo and most recently the City of Burlingame. Prepared By: Peter Skinner, Manager, Grants and Fund Programming 650.622.7818

of 2 13952367.1



* * *

AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS TO RECEIVE FUNDING AND ACT AS PROJECT

LEAD FOR THE REDWOOD CITY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT AND INCREASING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET FROM $70,473,295 TO $71,323,295

WHEREAS, the City of Redwood City (City) has requested San Mateo County

Measure A Grade Separation Program category funding from the San Mateo County

Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to help fund the Project Study Report (PSR) to explore

alternatives for a grade separation of Whipple Avenue, Brewster Avenue and

Broadway (Project); and

WHEREAS, potential impacts to the Redwood City Caltrain Station located

approximately one half mile to the south will be analyzed as part of the PSR; and

WHEREAS, the total cost of the PSR is estimated to be $850,000; and

WHEREAS, the SMCTA has programmed and allocated $750,000 to the PSR for

the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City budgeted $100,000 as its local match to the Measure A funds;

and

WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) will serve as the lead

implementing agency for the Project; and

WHEREAS, no JPB member funds are planned for this Project and all Project

related costs incurred by the JPB will be paid for by the SMCTA and the City; and

WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Budget needs to be amended to be

increased by $850,000, from $70,473,295 to $71,323,295, to reflect the funding that the

JPB will receive from SMCTA and the City for the Project PSR.

of 2 13952367.1

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Peninsula

Corridor Joint Powers Board hereby:

1. Authorizes the Executive Director or his designee to execute agreements with the

San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the City of Burlingame to receive

funding and for the JPB to act as lead implementing agency for the Redwood City

Grade Separation Project; and

2. Amends the Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Budget by $850,000 to increase it from

$70,473,295 to $71,323,295; and

3. Authorizes the Executive Director, or his designee, to enter into any subsequent

agreements or amendments with the City or SMCTA, file any other required

documentation, and take any other actions necessary to give effect to the

resolution.


AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

of 2

13953728.1



TO: Joint Powers Board THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Derek Hansel Carter Mau Chief Financial Officer Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TECHNICAL RECRUITING SERVICES ACTION Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board:

1. Award a contract to J. Powers Recruiting, Inc. (J. Powers), of Sacramento, California, to provide Technical Recruiting Services for a not-to-exceed amount of $5.6 million for a five-year term.

2. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to execute a contract with J. Powers in full conformity with the terms and conditions set forth in the solicitation documents and negotiated agreement, and in a form approved by legal counsel.

SIGNIFICANCE Award of the contract will benefit the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) by providing a dedicated, qualified firm to provide on-call support for technical recruiting services. Currently, there are more than 20 open positions to be filled. Personnel recruited under this contract will become San Mateo County Transit District employees. The JPB has generally confined its third party recruiting to senior management and executive positions, relying on the Human Resources department to publicize and recruit for vacancies, including those related to railroad activities. However, certain specialized positions dedicated to the Caltrain rail system in the areas of Rail Operations, Engineering, and Maintenance have been difficult to fill. J. Powers will provide the JPB with the best available candidates in the market for such positions within a defined time frame, and conduct a selection process, which will be coordinated and monitored by JPB staff. BUDGET IMPACT Funds to support the award of this contract are included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Budget and will be included in future adopted operating budgets. The contract amount is based on approximately 15 positions filled annually; actual usage will be approved on a case by case basis by Human Resources and the Rail Division.

of 2

13953728.1

BACKGROUND A Request for Proposals was issued and advertised in a local newspaper and on the JPB’s procurement website. The JPB received three proposals; all met the requirements to receive a Small Business Enterprises (SBE) preference. An Evaluation Committee (Committee) comprised of qualified staff reviewed and scored the proposals in accordance with the following weighted criteria:

• Approach to Scope of Services/Project Methodology 0 -25 points • Qualifications and Experience of Firm 0 - 30 points • Qualifications and Experience of Management Team 0 - 30 points • Cost Proposal 0 - 15 points • Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Preference 0 – 5 points

After the initial scoring and ranking of proposals, only one firm, J. Powers Recruiting, Inc. (J. Powers) was found to be in the competitive range. The proposers are listed below:

• Accel Employment Service, Inc., Alameda, CA • Domain Experts Corporation, Santa Clara, CA • J. Powers Recruiting, Inc., Sacramento, CA

Upon final scoring of proposals, J. Powers received the highest consensus ranking. The Committee determined that the firm has the requisite depth of experience and the required qualifications to successfully perform the scope of services defined in the solicitation. The DBE Officer reviewed all the proposals and determined that J. Powers has a 100 percent SBE commitment. Staff successfully negotiated contractual terms and conditions, including price, with J. Powers and determined costs to be fair, reasonable and consistent with previous one-time purchases for similar services. J. Powers is capable of providing the specified services at a fair and reasonable price. Staff therefore recommends award of a contract to J. Powers Recruiting, Inc. Contract Officer: Cathy Hoang 650.295.6866 Project Manager: Juliet Nogales-Deguzman, Manager, 650.508.6236 Human Resources

of 2

13953716.1



* * *

AWARDING A CONTRACT TO J. POWERS RECRUITING, INC. FOR

FOR AN ESTIMATED NOT-TO-EXCEED TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5.6 MILLION FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM

WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) issued a Request for

Proposals (RFP) for technical recruiting services to fill certain specialized positions

dedicated to the Caltrain rail system; and

WHEREAS, in response to the RFP, the JPB received a total of three proposals; and

WHEREAS, the RFP included the JPB’s Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program,

granting a preference for proposals with small business utilization, for which all three firms

applied; and

WHEREAS, an Evaluation Committee (Committee) composed of JPB staff reviewed

and evaluated the firms’ proposals, scored and ranked the proposals according to the

evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and determined that only one firm was in the

competitive range; and

WHEREAS, the Committee completed its evaluation process and determined that J.

Powers Recruiting, Inc. (J. Powers) of Sacramento, California received the highest

consensus ranking; and

WHEREAS, the Committee further determined that J. Powers possesses the

necessary qualifications and requisite experience to successfully provide technical

recruiting services to the JPB, and will perform such services at a fair and reasonable price;

and

of 2

13953716.1

WHEREAS, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise officer reviewed the J. Powers

proposal and determined the firm met the requirements of the JPB’s SBE Program; and

WHEREAS, staff and legal counsel reviewed the J. Powers proposal and determined

the proposal complies with the requirements of the solicitation documents; and

WHEREAS, Staff Coordinating Council recommends, and the Executive Director

concurs, that the Board of Directors award a contract to J. Powers for technical recruiting

services for a not-to-exceed total amount of $5.6 million for a five-year term.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Peninsula

Corridor Joint Powers Board hereby awards a contract for technical recruiting services to

J. Powers of Sacramento, California for a five-year term for a not-to-exceed total amount

of $5.6 million; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Executive Director, or his designee, is authorized to

execute a contract with J. Powers in full conformity with all the terms and conditions of the

RFP and negotiated agreement and in a form approved by legal counsel.

Regularly passed and adopted this 7th day of December, 2017 by the following

vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

of 2



TO: Joint Powers Board

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett Executive Director FROM: Michelle Bouchard

Chief Operating Officer, Rail

SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW CIVIL INFRACTION PROCESS FOR FARE EVASION

ACTION This report is for information only. No Board action is required. Staff will present a proposal for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) to create a new process for issuance of civil (administrative) citations to patrons who do not properly pay for Caltrain fares. The attached ordinance will be brought to the Board of Directors (Board) for consideration and adoption in January. The Board also will be asked to approve a contract with a third party vendor to administer the citation administration, hearing/appeal and penalty collection processes.

SIGNIFICANCE The proposed ordinance will allow the JPB to implement an alternative to the current criminal infraction-based penalties for fare evasion. Under the new fare enforcement program, fare evaders will be assessed administrative penalties of $75 for failure to show proper proof of payment. Late payment of the administrative penalty will result in an additional $25 late penalty (for a total of $100), and if collection services or coordination with the Franchise Tax Board is required to collect the penalty, the additional fee will be $30 (for a total of $130). By contrast, under the current fare enforcement system, passengers are issued citations for criminal infractions and fined over $300 per violation through the superior court system. The current system, which has been very challenging for staff, contractors and the courts to implement, has not accomplished the JPB's stated goals.

The new fare enforcement program is expected to provide benefits to the JPB and passengers including: increased compliance with Caltrain fare policies; standardization of the enforcement process and elimination of discretion in the issuance of citations (and associated concerns about selective enforcement); minimize conflicts between passengers and fare enforcement agents; save staff time and costs associated with citation issuance and court appearances; and reduce the penalties associated with each incident of fare evasion.

of 2

In addition, the administrative penalties will be able to be retained by the JPB, increasing revenue and making up for the revenue losses associated with fare evasion. Finally, this new administrative hearing/review process is favored by the San Mateo County Superior Court due to the resulting decrease in court congestion. BUDGET IMPACT Staff does not anticipate the new fare enforcement system will have a significant net budgetary effect, but will track any budget impacts and report back to the Board.

BACKGROUND Caltrain commuter rail service operates on a proof-of-payment (POP) system. The POP system is an honor-based fare collection approach. The Caltrain system has no barriers or gates to validate fare prior to boarding. The proof-of-payment system requires Caltrain patrons to carry a ticket or pass proving that they have paid their fares. The current fare enforcement program relies primarily on Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI) conductors who act as Fare Enforcement Agents by performing train car sweeps for proof-of-payment. Staff and legal counsel have determined that Senate Bill (SB) 614, which was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor this year and which amended California Penal Code Section 640, expands the JPB's authority to enact and enforce an ordinance for the issuance of citations for fare evasion, provide an administrative hearing process for imposition of an administrative penalty, and retain the fines collected. If a transit agency elects to pursue the administrative enforcement option, California Penal Code Section 640(e) and California Public Utilities Code Section 99580, et seq. require the adoption of an ordinance and the establishment of an administrative review and hearing process for handling of all fare evasion citations. The proposed enforcement and issuance of citations for fare evasion excludes all minors. Prepared by: Jenny Le-Christensen, Management Analyst 650.622.8050

of 7

ORDINANCE NO. ____ PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

****

ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES, FEES, AND HEARING PROCEDURES FOR PASSENGERS RIDING CALTRAIN WITHOUT PROPER FARES AND PROOF OF PAYMENT

THIS ORDINANCE is adopted with reference to the following facts and

circumstances which are found and declared by the Board of Directors (Board) of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB).

WHEREAS, Caltrain commuter rail service passengers do not pass through barriers

or gates before boarding, which would require evidence of fare payment and fare validation prior to boarding, and the absence of which led to the JPB to institute a proof-of-payment (POP) fare enforcement system requiring patrons to carry a valid form of fare media to prove that they have paid their proper fares for each trip; and

WHEREAS, California Penal Code Section 640 provides that fare evasion and the

misuse of any ticket or pass with the intent to evade fare payment is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and by community service for a total time not to exceed 48 hours for the first and second violations; and

WHEREAS, California Penal Code Section 640 further provides that fare evasion

and the misuse of any ticket or pass with the intent to evade fare payment is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed four hundred dollars ($400) and/or by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than 90 days for the third and any subsequent violations; and

WHEREAS, California Penal Code Section 830.14 permits the JPB to appoint

designated persons to act as its agents in the enforcement of the fare evasion provisions of Penal Code Section 640, following required training; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to JPB Resolultion 2003-35, the Executive Director designated

conductors employed by Caltrain's contract operator, currently Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI), and Transit Police, provided by a contract with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, to act as Fare Enforcement Agents by performing random inspections for POP and issuing citations that are through the superior courts; and

WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 99580, et seq. permits the JPB to enact an ordinance to impose administrative penalties for fare evasion in addition to the criminal penalties listed above; and

of 7

WHEREAS, the JPB has found that enforcing POP violations exclusively through the superior courts creates challenges for the JPB and patrons that could be diminished by an administrative citation process for first and second time offenses, with both administrative and criminal citations being issued only to adult patrons; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director requests, and the Staff Coordinating Council recommends, that the Board adopt an administrative citation and civil infraction process as an additional enforcement mechanism that is an alternative to the issuance of criminal citations for first and second-time fare evasion offenses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board as follows: SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.01 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

(a) The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board finds that there is a need for an administrative method of enforcement for violations of the Caltrain fare requirements, also known as "fare evasion," as authorized by California Penal Code Section 640(e) and California Public Utilities Code Section 99580 et seq.

(b) The proof-of-payment (POP) fare enforcement procedures and penalties established in this Ordinance Establishing Administrative Penalties, Fees, And Hearing Procedures For Passengers Riding Caltrain Without Proper Fares and Proof of Payment are in addition to any other criminal, civil or other legal or equitable remedy established by law for fare evasion.

(c) The JPB hereby finds and determines that the implementation of this Ordinance, and related enforcement of Caltrain's POP system, is a matter of safety and security for Caltrain patrons and the general public, and of financial responsibility on the part of the JPB.

(d) Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 640(e) and California Public Utilities Code Section 99580 et seq., the JPB adopts this Ordinance to achieve the following goals:

1. To supply the public with a high-quality, safe, and efficient transportation system that enhances the quality of life to Caltrain patrons;

2. To increase fare compliance with and adopt procedures to identify, deter and penalize fare evasion in a timely, efficient and fair manner;

3. To minimize the expense and delay where existing remedies available through the criminal court system are costly and time-consuming for all parties involved.

1.02 TITLE. This Ordinance Establishing Administrative Penalties, Fees, And Hearing Procedures For Passengers Riding Caltrain Without Proper Fares and Proof of Payment is known and cited as the “Administrative Citation Ordinance” and referred to herein as “this Ordinance.”

of 7

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Caltrain facility means all Caltrain property. (b) Caltrain vehicle means all Caltrain train cars. (c) Days means calendar days unless specified otherwise. (d) Fare Enforcement Agent means a conductor, fare inspector, or other

authorized Caltrain employee or contractor. (e) Fare means the monetary charges established by the JPB for the use of

Caltrain facilities and vehicles. (f) Fare Media means the methods by which fares are paid, issued by or on

behalf of Caltrain for the payment of fare. (g) JPB means Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. (h) “Passenger”, “patron”, “customer”, and “rider” mean any person in, on,

using, or attempting to access a Caltrain facility or vehicle. (i) Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or

company. (j) Third-Party Procession Agent refers to an agent designated by the JPB to

process notices of violations, collect administrative penalties, administer review and appeals processes, and perform other related tasks.

(k) Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI) is the JPB's current contract operator of the Caltrain commuter rail service.

SECTION 3. FARES RULES. 3.01 Required Fares. Patrons who ride Caltrain must pay all applicable fares for each trip on Caltrain, as established by the JPB Board of Directors or its delegee. 3.02 Proof of Payment. Patrons must carry and show appropriate proof of payment on Caltrain facilities and vehicles upon request by a Fare Enforcement Agent, peace officer or JPB representative. 3.03 Fare Evasion. Evading payment of fares is prohibited under California Penal Code Section 640(c), California Public Utilities Code Section 99580, et seq. and this Ordinance. Fare evasion subject to penalty hereunder includes the following:

1. Entering a Caltrain vehicle without adequate fare media. 2. Misuse of a Caltrain pass, ticket, or token with the intent to evade the

payment of adequate fares. 3. Duplicating, counterfeiting, altering, or transferring any nontransferable

Caltrain fare media without Caltrain’s authorization. 4. Falsely representing oneself as eligible for a waiver or a special or reduced

fare, or obtaining fare media by making a false or misleading representation. 5. Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to present, upon request by

Fare Enforcement Agents, peace officers or JPB representative or within 72 hours thereafter, acceptable proof of discount eligibility to use a discount ticket.

of 7

6. Entering a Caltrain vehicle or facility when any penalty, fees or assessments for prior fare evasion is past due.

7. Entering a Caltrain vehicle in such a way as to bypass or avoid Caltrain representatives collecting fares.

SECTION 4. ENFORCEMENT. 4.01 Violations - Adults. An adult (over the age of 18) who evades fares in violation of this Ordinance is subject to a Notice of Violation administrative citation and subsequent imposition of any and all applicable remedies, fines, criminal sanctions, damages, and penalties set forth in this Ordinance and otherwise available by law. The administrative citation process is not available to patrons with two prior fare evasion citations. 4.02 Exemption for Minors. This Ordinance does not apply to minors (persons under the age of 18). 4.03 Notice of Violation. Upon determination that a person aged 18 or older has committed a violation Penal Code section 640(c)(1)-(3), and that the violation is the patron's first or second such violation, a JPB Fare Enforcement Agent or peace officer will issue a Notice of Violation. Each Notice of Violation issued under this Ordinance for administrative enforcement of Penal Code Section 640(c)(1)-(3) will include:

1. The date, approximate time, and day of the week of the violation; 2. The violation number; 3. The Caltrain patron’s First Name, Middle Initial, and Last Name; 4. The Caltrain patron’s Address and Date of Birth; 5. The Caltrain patron’s Driver License Number and State Issued, or comparable

information from another form of identification (e.g., passport); 6. Caltrain patron’s Descriptors; 7. A reference to this Ordinance and the section of the Ordinance violated; 8. The Administrative Penalty amount ($75.00); 9. The location where the violation occurred, including whether the citation was

issued on a train and, if so, the train number and cab number of the train ridden by the patron without the proper fare;

10. The nearest Caltrain station to where the violation occurred, and the county in which the violation occurred;

11. The name and Identification of the issuing Fare Enforcement Agent or peace officer;

12. The signature of the patron; 13. The date when payment is required; 14. Available payment options; 15. Directions on the Initial Review Process; and 16. Directions on the Administrative Hearing Process.

SECTION 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND FEES FOR 1st AND 2nd OFFENSES.

of 7

5.01 Administrative Penalties. Upon issuance of a Notice of Violation pursuant to Section 4.03 of this Ordinance, an administrative penalty of $75.00 will be imposed. . 5.02 Payment of Penalties. A person who is issued a Notice of Violation under this Ordinance must pay the associated administrative penalty or contest the notice within 21 days of issuance. Penalties may be paid online, in person, or by mail. 5.03 Late Payment. Failure to make a required payment, or contest a notice, within 21 days from issuance of the Notice of Violation may result in an additional penalty of $25.00. If the JPB uses a collection service or enlists assistance from the Franchise Tax Board to collect administrative and late penalties, the person who was issued the Notice of Violation may be required to pay an additional $30.00. The JPB or designated Third-Party Processing Agent will mail at least one reminder notice to all patrons with late, unpaid penalties upon expiration of the 21-day payment period. The notice will demand payment for the uncollected amount and associated late penalty amounts, and provide information on payment options including addresses and methods of payment. Patrons with unpaid penalties after 90 days from mailing of the first reminder notice will be sent a delinquency notice indicating the JPB's intent to pursue collections. SECTION 6. INITIAL REVIEW. Patrons are entitled to seek an Initial Review of any Notice of Violation administrative citation following a process including all of the following steps:

1. Within 21 calendar days from the issuance of the Notice of Violation, a person may request an initial review of the violation by the JPB or designated Third-Party Processing Agency.

2. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, online or in person. 3. There is no charge for this review. 4. If, following the initial review, the JPB is satisfied that the violation did not occur or

that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the Notice of Violation appropriate in the interests of justice, the JPB will dismiss the Notice of Violation.

5. The JPB or designated Third-Party Processing Agency will notify the patron, in writing by mail, of the results of the Initial Review.

6. If the Notice of Violation is not dismissed, the JPB or designated Third-Party Processing Agency will notify the patron of a reason for that denial, of the patron's right to request an administrative hearing, and of the procedure for waiving prepayment of a penalty (in case of an appeal) based upon inability to pay.

7. If the patron is found not liable during the Initial Review process, any amount paid will be refunded.

SECTION 7. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. If a person is dissatisfied with the results of an Initial Review, the person may request an administrative hearing no later than 21

of 7

calendar days following the mailing of the results of the JPB’s, or Third-Party Processing Agency's, initial review. The Administrative Hearing will be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of the request for the Administrative Hearing. The person requesting the Administrative Hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days. The Administrative Hearing process includes all of the following:

1. The person requesting the Administrative Hearing has the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing will be conducted within the jurisdiction of the JPB, at a location designated by the JPB.

2. The person remits payment for the full amount due on the Notice of Violation. Payment may be made by telephone, in writing, online or in person.

3. The Administrative Hearing must provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the contested violation(s) in accordance with written procedures established by the JPB.

4. The Administrative Hearing will be conducted before a hearing officer. The JPB will designate a hearing officer for the Administrative Hearing process. The hearing officer may not be an employee of the JPB nor the contract operator of Caltrain (currently Transit America, Inc. (TASI)). The compensation, continued employment, performance evaluation, and benefits of the hearing officer must not be directly or indirectly affected by the amount of fare evasion violation penalties imposed or upheld by the hearing officer.

5. The Fare Enforcement Agent or peace officer who issued the Notice of Violation is not required to participate in an Administrative Hearing. The JPB will not be required to produce any evidence other than the Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation, in proper form, will be deemed prima facie evidence of the violation.

6. Following a determination by the hearing officer that a person committed the violation, the hearing officer may allow payment of the administrative penalty in installments or by deferred payment if the person provides satisfactory evidence of an inability to pay the penalty in full. The hearing officer may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment if the patron shows proof of an inability to pay. The decision of the hearing officer must include reasons in support of the decision rendered.

7. The hearing officer’s decision following the Administrative Hearing may be personally delivered or sent by first class mail.

8. If you are found not liable during the Administrative Hearing process, any amount paid will be refunded.

SECTION 8. APPEALS. Within 30 days after mailing of the decision of the Administrative Hearing, the patron may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court in the county indicated on the Notice of Violation as the county where the violation occurred. This appeal will be heard de novo, except that the contents of the Administrative Hearing file will be submitted as evidence. A copy of the Notice of Violation will be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts. The appeal will be conducted as otherwise provided by law.

of 7

SECTION 9. ENFORCEMENT FOR THIRD AND FOURTH OFFENSES. Upon determination that a person aged 18 or older has committed a violation Penal Code section 640(c)(1)-(3), and that the violation is the patron's third or fourth such violation, a peace officer will issue a fare evasion citation for processing through the superior court. The patron will be subject to ejection from the train at the next stop and exclusion from Caltrain for 90 days. SECTION 10. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. It is the intention of the Board of Directors that this Ordinance be liberally construed to accomplish its remedial objectives and to be compatible with Federal and State enactments. SECTION 11. PREEMPTION. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted or applied to create any power, duty, or obligation in conflict with, or preempted by, any Federal or State law. Even if not preempted by Federal or State law, the provisions of this ordinance will not apply if the Federal or State law is more restrictive toward the practices, activities, and/or uses banned herein. If it is determined that a provision included herein becomes preempted by Federal or State law, that preempted provision will be automatically rescinded from this Ordinance. Such rescission will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance will be effective February 1, 2018. SECTION 13. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is invalid, such invalidity will not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Adopted this ________day of ________________, 2017, by the following vote of the Board.

AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

_____________________________________________ Chair, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

ATTEST:

____________________________________________ JPB Secretary

of 2

AGENDA ITEM # 14 DECEMBER 7, 2017



Executive Director FROM: Seamus Murphy

Chief Communications Officer SUBJECT: 2018 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM ACTION

This report is for information only. No Board action is required. At the January 4, 2018, meeting, staff will present the final 2018 Legislative Program for Board adoption. SIGNIFICANCE The 2018 Program establishes the principles that will guide Caltrain’s legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts through the 2018 calendar year, including the second half of the State legislative session and the second session of the115th Congress. The program is intended to be broad enough to cover the wide variety of issues that are likely to be considered during that time and flexible enough to allow Caltrain to respond swiftly and effectively to unanticipated developments. Adoption of the Program provides our legislative delegation and our transportation partners with a clear statement of Caltrain’s priorities. The 2018 Program is organized to guide Caltrain’s actions and positions in support of three primary objectives:

1. Maintain and enhance funding opportunities to support Caltrain’s programs, projects, and services.

2. Seek a regulatory environment that streamlines project delivery and maximizes

Caltrain’s ability to meet public transportation service demands. 3. Reinforce and expand programs that build and incentivize public transportation

ridership. The Program is structured to apply these core objectives to a series of issues detailed in the 2018 Legislative Program. Should other issues surface that require Caltrain’s attention, actions will be guided by the three policy objectives listed above. If needed, potential action on issues that are unrelated to these policy goals will be brought to Caltrain’s Board of Directors for consideration.

of 2

Caltrain and its legislative consultants will employ a variety of engagement tools to support the 2018 Legislative Program, including:

1. Direct Engagement Engage policymakers directly and sponsor legislation, submit correspondence and provide public testimony that communicates and advances Caltrain’s legislative priorities and positions.

2. Coalition-based Engagement

Engage local and regional stakeholders to build awareness about specific issues and participate in local, regional, statewide and national coalitions organized to advance positions that are consistent with the 2018 Program.

3. Media Engagement

Build public awareness and communicate legislative priorities by issuing press releases, organizing media events, and through the use of social media and other electronic media.

BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact on the budget. BACKGROUND Staff actively monitors legislative and regulatory activity and will seek Board positions on selected bills as appropriate to further Caltrain’s legislative objectives and to provide support for our advocacy efforts. Staff will supply updated reports summarizing relevant legislative and regulatory activities, allowing the Board to track legislative developments and providing opportunities to take appropriate action on pending legislation. Prepared By: Casey Fromson, 650.508.6493 Government and Community Affairs Director

of 10

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

2018 Legislative Program

Purpose

Legislative and regulatory actions have the potential to significantly benefit Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) programs and services. They also have potential to present serious challenges that threaten the JPB’s ability to meet Caltrain’s most critical transportation demands.

The 2018 Legislative Program establishes the principles that will guide the Agency’s legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts through the 2018 calendar year, including the second half of the 2017-18 State legislative session and 115th Congress. The program is intended to be broad enough to cover the wide variety of issues that are likely to be considered during that time and flexible enough to allow the Agency to respond swiftly and effectively to unanticipated developments. Objectives The 2018 Legislative Program is organized to guide the Agency’s actions and positions in support of three primary objectives:

• Maintain and enhance funding opportunities to support the Agency’s programs and services. • Seek a regulatory environment that streamlines project delivery and maximizes the Agency’s ability to meet transportation service

demands. • Reinforce and expand programs that build and incentivize public transportation ridership and improve quality transportation choices.

Issues The Legislative Program is structured to apply these core objectives to a series of State and Federal issues falling in these categories:

• Budget and Transportation Funding Opportunities • Transportation Projects - Funding Requests and Needs • Regulatory and Administrative Issues

Within these categories are a detailed list of specific legislative initiatives and corresponding set of policy strategies. Should other issues surface that require the JPB’s attention, actions will be guided by the three policy objectives listed above. If needed, potential action on issues that are unrelated to these policy goals will be brought to the JPB’s Board of Directors for consideration. Advocacy Process

of 10

Staff will indicate on each monthly legislative update recommended positions for pending bills. Once the board has an opportunity to review the recommended position, staff will communicate the position to the relevant entity (such as the bill author, agency, or coalition). In rare circumstances, should a position on a bill be needed in advance of a board meeting, staff will confer with the Board Chair. If legislation falls outside of the scope of the Board’s adopted Legislative Program, Board approval will be required prior to the agency taking a position. Public Engagement Strategies Staff, led by the Communications Division and its legislative consultants, will employ a variety of public engagement strategies to support the 2018 Legislative Program, including:

• Direct Engagement Engage policymakers directly and sponsor legislation, submit correspondence and provide public testimony that communicates and advances the Agency’s legislative priorities and positions.

• Coalition-based Engagement

Engage local and regional stakeholders to build awareness about specific issues and participate in local, regional, statewide and national coalitions organized to advance positions that are consistent with the 2018 Legislative Program.

• Media Engagement

Build public awareness and communicate the Agency’s legislative priorities by issuing press releases, organizing media events, and through the use of social media.

of 10

State and Regional

Funding Opportunities and Challenges

Issue / Background Strategy

General Funding The State recently enacted SB 1, which, when fully implemented, will provide more than $700m per year for public transit. This is the largest increase in dedicated transit funding in more than 40 years. Complimentary to SB 1 is ACA 5 which, if passed by voters in June 2018, will protect new and existing sources of transit funding from future diversions by the Legislature. In 2014, the Legislature called for, via SB 1077, a pilot program to study a road charge model as an alternative to the gas tax. The nine-month pilot began in July 2016, with over 5,000 participating vehicles statewide. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) will report findings from the Legislature to the CTC and the Legislature by June 30, 2018.

• Protect against the elimination or diversion of any State or regional funds that support the agency’s transportation needs.

• Support State funding allocation requests for investments that benefit the agency’s transportation programs and services.

• Work with statewide transit coalitions to identify and advance opportunities for funding that would support the agency’s transportation priorities.

• Monitor recommendations of the Road Usage Charge (RUC) Technical advisory Committee and implementation of a RUC program by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA).

• Monitor efforts to implement a mileage-based user fee as a potential revenue source.

Formula Funding After years of diversion to support the State’s General Fund, funding for the State Transit Assistance (STA) program has remained stable over the last few budget cycles thanks to successful legal, legislative and political efforts on behalf of the transportation community. Still, more revenue is needed in order to meet the demand of increased

• Support the full funding of the STA program at levels called for in the 2011 reenactment of the 2010 gas-tax swap legislation.

• Advocate for the regularly scheduled issuance of State infrastructure bonds that support the Agency’s services and programs.

• Support full and timely allocation of the Agency’s STIP share. • Support legislation clarifying elements of the STA program recently changed in AB

1113 (Bloom).

of 10

ridership, reduce highway congestion – especially on Highway 101 – and adhere to the State’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating livable communities.

Cap-and-Trade Revenues In 2012, the State began implementing the cap-and-trade market-based compliance system approved as a part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Since the program began selling allowances, the program has generated billions of dollars. In 2014, legislation was enacted creating a long-term funding plan for cap-and-trade which dedicates 60 percent of cap-and-trade revenues to transportation. The remaining 40 percent is subject to annual appropriation through the state budget process. In 2017, the legislature extended the program from 2020 to 2030.

Caltrain is eligible for funding through the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, and the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program. Each program’s requirements, oversight, and competiveness vary. The programs require a certain percentage of funds be expended in state defined “disadvantaged communities” (as defined by CalEnviroScreen). This can prove difficult in jurisdictions with a small number of disadvantaged communities.

• Work with the Administration and like-minded coalitions to secure the appropriation of additional cap-and-trade revenues to support the Agency’s transportation needs.

• Support legislation and regional action that makes a broad array of the Agency’s emissions-reducing transportation projects, programs and services eligible for investment.

• Protect existing cap-and-trade appropriations for transit operations, capital projects and sustainable communities strategy implementation.

• Work to direct additional revenues to transit-eligible programs, including efforts to secure funding from the remaining discretionary funds and revenues dedicated to the high-speed-rail project.

• Support efforts to revise the State’s definition on “disadvantaged communities” to encompass a larger proportion of disadvantaged communities on the Peninsula.

Voter Threshold Legislation has been considered in recent years that provide a framework for lowering the thresholds for the State or a city,

• Support efforts to amend the State Constitution to reduce the voter threshold required for the State or a city, county, special district or regional transportation agency to impose a special tax for transportation projects or programs.

of 10

county, special JPB or regional public agency to impose a special tax.

Other State or Local Funding Options Local and regional governments continue to seek methods for funding new infrastructure, facility needs, sustainability initiatives, and projects that will support ridership growth through a variety of methods such as managed lanes and local ballot measures.

• Advocate for legislation that would create new local funding tools to support transportation infrastructure and services.

• Support innovative local and regional funding options that will provide financial support for the agency.

• Support legislation that works to ensure revenues generated through managed lane projects remain in the County of origin.

• Advocate for funding sources that would assist transit agencies in obtaining funds for sustainability initiatives including water conservation, waste reduction, long-term resource efficiency of facilities and equipment, and greenhouse gas reductions.

• Support funding for workforce housing to attract and retain quality personnel. • Support efforts that allow for public private partnerships that benefit the

implementation of capital projects, efficient operation of transit services, or enhanced access to a broad range of mobility options that reduce traffic congestion.

Transportation Projects

General As the Bay Area’s population continues to grow, the region’s transportation infrastructure is being negatively impacted. Highways, local streets and roads are becoming heavily congested, Caltrain is nearing its capacity limits, and the demand for housing with easy access to public transit is increasing.

• Work with partners in the region to bring business, community, and transportation stakeholders together to enhance, support and advocate for transportation and mobility in the Bay Area.

Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) Program In 2012, the State Legislature appropriated $705m in Prop 1A high-speed rail funds to modernize the Caltrain corridor and lay the foundation for future high-speed rail service. Under a multi-party regional funding agreement, this investment will

• Advocate for the sale and allocation of Proposition 1A bonds to meet the commitments specified in SB 1029 with respect to the Caltrain corridor.

• Support the allocation of cap-and-trade funding to advance implementation of the CalMod Program.

• Work with state, local and regional partners to advance policies and actions that will help secure funding needed to fulfill local and regional commitments to the CalMod Program.

Page 5 of 10

of 10

be used to match a variety of local, regional, state and federal funding sources to electrify the corridor, install an advanced signaling system and replace Caltrain’s aging diesel trains with electric trains that will dramatically improve service between San Francisco and San Jose.

Other Projects Beyond the CalMod Program, Caltrain has identified capital projects such as a fully electrified 8-car EMU fleet with longer platforms that will provide additional capacity and service benefits to Caltrain commuters. The capital needs also include but are not limited to grade separations and station upgrades.

In 2016, a new round of HSR Blended System planning, outreach and environmental clearance work kicked-off in the corridor. While this project is not being led by the JPB, the agency owns the right-of-way and has a significant interest in the process and success of the project that will “blended” with Caltrain service.

• Work to address regulatory challenges that limit the implementation of solutions that will maximize Caltrain capacity and service benefits.

• Support the allocation of cap-and-trade or other state / regional funding to advance implementation of Caltrain projects.

• Work to address regulatory actions or policies that negatively impact future capacity or service improvements.

• Consistent with existing agreements between JPB and CHSRA, support efforts to plan, engage stakeholders, and implement the Blended System project on the Caltrain corridor.

Transit Oriented Development / First and Last Mile First and last mile projects, as well as transit oriented development projects are an important part of the broad transit ecosystem that will help support robust ridership in the corridor.

• Support efforts to provide commuters with easy and convenient options to travel to and from major transit centers to their final destination.

• Support the development of new and innovative first and last mile options. • Support increased funding opportunities for first and last mile projects. • Advocate for policies that promote transit-oriented developments in ways that with

compliment transit services. • Support the State’s GHG reduction goals by supporting transit oriented

developments. • Support state funding incentives and streamlining processes for transit oriented

of 10

development.

Regulatory and Administrative Issues

General Every year a variety of legislation or regulatory action is pursued that would affect regulations governing transportation-related service operations, administration, planning and project delivery. In addition, opportunities exist to reform or update existing regulations that are outdated, or can be improved to address potential burdens on transportation agencies without affecting regulatory goals.

• Support opportunities to remove barriers to, and improve the ability to conduct, safe, efficient transportation operations, administration, planning and project delivery efforts, including alternative project delivery methods that provide flexibility to the agency.

• Oppose efforts to impose unjustified and burdensome regulations or restrictions on the Agency’s ability to conduct efficient transportation operations, administration, planning and project delivery efforts.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Several regional and statewide transportation organizations continue working to modernize CEQA and minimize unnecessary delays during the environmental review process.

• Closely monitor efforts to modernize CEQA and support proposals that advantage transportation projects, including bicycle, pedestrian and transit-oriented development projects, without compromising CEQA’s effectiveness as an environmental protection policy.

• Support efforts to streamline project delivery including expedited reviews and approvals for large transportation projects such as HWY 101 HOV/HOT lane conversion and projects within the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.

Sustainable Communities Strategies Implementation In conjunction with AB 32 and SB 32 implementation, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) requires regions to develop Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) with integrated housing, land-use and transportation policies that will accommodate population growth and reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions by specific amounts. In 2013, regional authorities in the Bay Area approved Plan Bay Area, which includes the region’s SCS.

• Advocate for policies that provide adequate and equitable funding to support increased demand and dependence on JPB’s transportation services associated with the implementation of SB 375 and Plan Bay Area.

of 10

State Rail Plan Caltrans is releasing the new 2018 California State Rail Plan which will provide an framework for planning and implementing California’s rail network for the next 20 years and beyond.

• Closely monitor the State Rail Plan for potential opportunities to leverage resources for the Caltrain corridor.

• Ensure the State Rail Plan appropriately characterizes the Caltrain system and future plans.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_PublicReleaseDraft_10112017.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_PublicReleaseDraft_10112017.pdf

of 10

Federal

Funding Opportunities and Challenges

Issue / Background Strategy

Federal Appropriations Every year, Congress adopts several appropriations bills that cover 12 major issue areas, including the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. These measures provide the authority for federal agencies to spend money during the upcoming fiscal year for the programs they administer. In September 2017, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) to keep federal agencies funded at the same level as the previous fiscal year, through December 8, 2017. Congress will have to pass a CR or omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government for the fiscal year 2018.

• Partner with local, regional, State and national coalitions to advocate appropriation of the maximum authorized amount for programs that benefit the agency’s transportation services and needs.

• Work with local and regional coalitions to support requests for funding from discretionary programs.

• Communicate frequently with the agency’s federal delegation and key appropriators on the needs or concerns of pending appropriation bills.

Tax and Finance Congress also considers legislation that governs tax and finance issues that impact transit agencies. In 2018, Congress is expected to take action on a significant tax overhaul measure.

• Support efforts to ensure tax provisions that benefit the agency’s priorities are included in any tax or finance proposal.

• Protect against the elimination or diversion of any tax policies that support the agency’s transportation needs.

Transportation Projects

General Support the efforts of partnering agencies to obtain federal funding for transit projects in San Mateo County.

• Work with federal delegation members, as well as local, regional, and state coalitions to support the federal funding requests for our partner transit agencies on projects that provide complimentary services for the agency.

Caltrain Modernization Program The current Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)

• Advocate for the PCEP Core Capacity funding to be included in the Fiscal Year (FY)18 THUD Appropriations Conference Report. Advocate for the PCEP to be included in the

of 10

funding plan includes funding from several federal funding sources including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Core Capacity Program.

Other Projects Beyond the CalMod Program, Caltrain has identified capital projects such as a fully electrified 8-car EMU fleet with longer platforms that will provide additional capacity and service benefits to Caltrain commuters. The capital needs also include but are not limited to grade separations, station upgrades, and supporting regional projects that will increase Caltrain ridership.

FY19 President’s budget request and in the FY19 THUD Appropriations bills. • Work with federal delegation members, as well as local, regional, and state coalitions to

support the PCEP requests for funding. • Support the allocation of federal funding to advance implementation of Caltrain projects.

Regulatory and Administrative Issues

FAST Act and other Regulations Under FAST Act, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) will issue guidance and conduct rulemaking to implement various regulatory changes.

USDOT will also issue guidance, new rulemaking, and take action in response to Executive Orders on a variety of issues outside the scope of the FAST Act.

• Monitor and review guidance and rulemaking proposals affecting FAST Act implementation and other transportation issues.

• Collaborate with local, regional, state and national transportation advocacy groups to coordinate comments and advocacy efforts that support regulations that maximize benefits for transportation programs, services and users.

Infrastructure Proposal President Trump and USDOT have been working to draft an infrastructure proposal to fund transportation projects.

• Monitor closely and take action as needed on new Administration policies that may have a significant impact on transit / transportation projects and programs.

• Advocate for funding for the agency’s projects and needs in the President’s and congressional infrastructure proposals.

agenda - caltrain.comjpb+final+agenda.pdfpeninsula corridor electrification project monthly report...

Documents