J G C J B DR G D P J R K Y M Z AGENDA J H E D ...and+Minutes/JPB/Board...PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT...

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

May 4, 2017 – Thursday 10:00 a.m.

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Report from the Nominating Committee (Yeager, Guilbault,

Zmuda)

a. Election of Vice Chair

MOTION

5. Public Comment Public comment by each individual speaker shall be limited to two minutes

6. Consent Calendar Members of the public or Board may request that an item under the Consent Calendar be

considered separately

a) Approval of Minutes of April 6, 2017

MOTION

7. Chairperson’s Report INFORMATIONAL

8. Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee INFORMATIONAL

9. Report of the Executive Director

a) Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Monthly Report

b) Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Full Funding Grant

Agreement Update

INFORMATIONAL

INFORMATIONAL

10. Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for

March 2017

MOTION

11. Key Caltrain Performance Statistics March 2017 INFORMATIONAL

12. Caltrain Triennial Customer Survey Key Findings INFORMATIONAL

13. Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Budget INFORMATIONAL

14. Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Budget INFORMATIONAL

15. Call for a Public Hearing at the July 6, 2017 Meeting for Proposed

Codified Tariff Changes

MOTION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017

JEFF GEE, CHAIR

JEANNIE BRUINS

DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS

ROSE GUILBAULT

DAVE PINE

JOÉL RAMOS

KEN YEAGER

MONIQUE ZMUDA

JIM HARTNETT

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

May 4, 2017 Agenda

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

16. Authorize an Amendment with ARINC, Inc. for the Rail Operations

Control System Modification Contract to Increase the Contract by

$1 Million

RESOLUTION

17. Authorize Amendment to Contracts with HDR Engineering, Inc.

and Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. for Provision of On-Call

General Engineering Consultant Design Services to Increase the

Contracts by an Aggregate Total Amount of $8,250,000

RESOLUTION

18. Authorize Award of12 On-Call Contracts for Information

Technology Consulting Support Services for an Aggregate Not-to-

Exceed Amount of $11.1 Million for a Three-Year Base Term

RESOLUTION

19. Overview of California Government Code 4217.0 – 4217.18 Energy

Conservation Contracts

INFORMATIONAL

20. Call for a Public Hearing on June 1, 2017 for an Energy Service

Contract for Energy-Efficient Lighting Retrofit at the San Carlos

Caltrain Station

MOTION

21. Legislative Update INFORMATIONAL

22. Regional Measure 3 Update INFORMATIONAL

23. Correspondence

24. Board Member Requests

25. Date/Time of Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, June 1, 2017,

10 a.m. at San Mateo County Transit District Administrative

Building, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos

Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070

26. 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 Group et al; San Mateo County Superior Court

Case No. Case No. 17CIV00888

b) Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing


Parsons Transportation Group v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers

Board et al; San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. Case

No. 17CIV00786

27. Adjourn

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]

of 12

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)

Board of Directors Meeting

1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos CA 94070

MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Bruins, D. Davis, J. Gee (Chair), R. Guilbault, J. Ramos, K. Yeager,

M. Zmuda

MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Pine

STAFF PRESENT: M. Bouchard, J. Cassman, A. Chan, J. Hartnett, K. Kelly, L. Larano,

M. Martinez, N. McKenna, S. Murphy, S. Petty, M. Simon, P. Skinner,

S. van Hoften

Chair Jeff Gee called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. and Director Jeannie Bruins

led the Pledge of Allegiance.

SWEARING IN OF MONIQUE ZMUDA, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

MAYOR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Martha Martinez, JPB Secretary, administered the Oath of Office.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the electric-multiple

units (EMUs) should not have been issued due to platform level compatibility with High-

Speed Rail (HSR).

Mike Brady, Menlo Park, said staff made a big mistake when applying for the Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) grant by stating it was only for Caltrain. The Peninsula

Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) is going to cost $2.2 billion and growing and

Caltrain could have had modern Tier 4 diesels for $500 million, one quarter the cost. The

bad marriage with California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) will never be able to

attain capacity to carry 100,000 passengers because many commuter trains will be

displaced by HSR trains.

Andy Chow, Redwood City, said the new administration is holding up PCEP. The

problem is that some people don’t think national transportation is a national priority, but

it is.

Jack Ringham, Atherton, said the first consideration of electrification in 1992 was

estimated at $296 million. In 1999 the estimate went up to $456 million and included a

tunnel from 4th and King streets to the Transbay Terminal. Mr. Ringham said the 2004

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was $351 million, the 2009 EIR was $978 million, and

the 2014 EIR was $1.189 million. He said the most recent cost is almost $2 billion.

Mr. Ringham said the original cost was $3.9 million a mile and the latest cost is

$38 million a mile, ten times as much in about 25 years.

Joint Powers Board Meeting

Minutes of April 6, 2017

Page 2 of 12

Jeff Carter, Millbrae, said electrification is the most efficient way to operate Caltrain. In

New York lines are electrified and don’t want to go to Tier 4 diesels. He said the

$2 billion costs are for catenary lines and vehicles. Mr. Carter said if staff stays with Tier 4

diesels new vehicles will still have to be purchased.

Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, said everyone in the region has been doing what they

can to get the funding for electrification. A few campaigns have been done to reach

those not in the county. She said there is a campaign in San Francisco, San Mateo and

Santa Clara counties to flyer and call congressional delegates to unlock this project

and vote for funding.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Approval of Minutes of March 2, 2017

Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for February 2017

Authorize Filing of Applications to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency

Services to Receive $751,397 in State Proposition 1B Transit Security Grant

Program Funds

Appointment of CAC Member Julia Welch Representing San Mateo County to a

Term Ending June 30, 2018

Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Director Josè Cisneros

Director Zmuda asked if the agency is under spending for revenues and are expenses

within projections. She asked if in the future the Statement of Revenues and Expenses

can be removed from the consent calendar so a more detail report can be given by

staff on a quarterly basis.

Motion/Second: Davis/Guilbault

Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Guilbault, Ramos, Yeager, Zmuda, Gee

Absent: Pine

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

Appointment of a Nominating Committee for Vice Chair

Chair Gee appointed Directors Ken Yeager, Zmuda and Rose Guilbault.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Monthly Report

Liria Larano, Deputy Chief Officer, Caltrain Modernization Program, said during the past

month staff completed review of the 65 percent overhead contact system, design for

the foundations and poles with Balfour Beatty and worked with on the signal system

design. She said Balfour continued work in the field to investigate utilities, soil conditions

and determine layout of poles in right of way. Ms. Larano said Stadler continued to

advance the vehicle design and worked on interface points with existing infrastructure.

PCEP Full Funding Grant Agreement Update (FFGA)

Jim Hartnett, Executive Director, said PCEP is $1.98 billion of which $647 million is

scheduled to come from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Full Funding Grant

Agreement (FFGA). The grant is qualified; all the statutory and regulatory requirements

have been met, and is eligible to be signed. Based on the history of the grant program,

this grant would be signed in the normal course. If it is not signed it would be the first



Page 3 of 12

grant to reach all the requirements and have the recommendation of the FTA to not be

signed. With the change in administration, the signing of the grant was deferred until

the president’s budget comes out. If the funding is in the budget the FFGA will be

signed. If it is not it will not be signed. Staff is aggressively pursuing all avenues to ensure

this is in the president’s budget. There is tremendous national, State and regional

support. The national concern is if Caltrain doesn’t get the grant then no one else that

is in the queue will get one either. There are national associations lobbying for this

project because of the importance of it. If the PCEP is not in the president’s budget in

May there is still a possibility that it could ultimately be in a budget adopted by

Congress. Congress has not adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget. They are poised

to adopt portions of it at the end of April or early May. Staff is best suited to have the

FFGA signed by June 30, the date in which the contracts have been extended to. If

the FFGA is not signed by June 30 staff cannot proceed without the $647 million coming

from other source or sources. There is tremendous support and involvement from the

State, the region and local partners. On April 4 the president said “he doesn’t want

to send $1 billion to New York and find out five years later the money was never spent

because we are going to be very strong that it has to be spent on shovels, not on other

programs. He also went on to say that if you have a job that can’t start within 90 days

we are not going to give you the money for it.” The shovels are ready to go in the

ground for this project and fit right into the president’s goals.

Director Yeager asked how the spending is on the PCEP contracts the Board approved

until June. Mr. Hartnett said he was authorized to proceed for each of the contracts

and are not exceeding those costs. It could ultimately cost up to $20 million and if it

goes until June it will likely be $16 million, but still within authorized amount.

Director Yeager asked if staff is working on a Plan B. Mr. Hartnett said yes. He said staff

is aggressively working on Plan A and engaging bi-partisan support throughout the

country. Mr. Hartnett said the California Congressional Republican Delegation has

raised issues on their opposition to CAHSRA and staff is working on solving that problem.

The State is most definitely interested in helping from the governor on down, but have

been occupied on the transportation bill to be voted on April 6. Staff is in discussions

with State, regional and local partners. Mr. Hartnett said the $647 million isn’t all

needed on Day 1 and under the FFGA the full funding doesn’t come all at once.

Director Yeager said as long as Congressman Kevin McCarthy doesn’t want to fund the

project and is friends with the president it could be a big issue. Mr. Hartnett said there

are three points in time to be in the budget. First there was $73 million directed to

Caltrain from FTA from prior funds if the FFGA is signed, second is the FY2017 budget

hasn’t been adopted, but the Senate version has funds for the program and the House

version of the budget has Caltrain listed and there has been no action to take Caltrain

out. Mr. Hartnett said by end of April or early May there is to be a vote on FY2017

budget and there could be a Continuing Resolution for everything or many things.

Mr. Hartnett reported:

FY2017 annual count survey will be completed this month.

Weekday service changes effective Monday, April 10.

Special event train service includes:

o Sharks



Page 4 of 12

o Giants home opener is April 10

The San Francisco Highway Bridges Project at 23rd, 22nd and Paul avenues

expected to be completed by spring 2017.

San Mateo 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project contracts will be awarded in

spring 2017 with construction starting in summer 2017.

Los Gatos Bridge Project construction is scheduled to be completed by early

2018

The Grade Crossing Project improves the safety at 10 grade crossings. Work

items include installation of signals, fences, gates, curbs, lighting and signs. The

crossings to be improved include 16th Street in San Francisco, Broadway in

Burlingame, Peninsula Avenue and 4th Avenue in San Mateo, Ravenswood

Avenue in Menlo Park, Alma Street and Charleston Road in Palo Alto,

Rengstroff Avenue and Castro Street in Mountain View and Mary Avenue in

Sunnyvale. The design was completed in December and staff is waiting for the

Federal Railroad Administration grant funds before advertising the contract.

Chair Gee said he passed through the Broadway crossing when “People Behaving

Badly” was being filmed.

Public Comment

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said the project has to increase seating by a minimum of

10 percent. Seating capacity is being misreported. People are being irresponsible

representing Caltrain.

Mike Brady, Menlo Park, said the communications-based overlay signal system (CBOSS)

is an anti-collision system that staff has been working on for years and is a miserable

failure. Parsons Transportation was fired recently and a new contractor will have to start

over. MetroLink used Parsons for their anti-collision system and they are ready to go

and operate. Balfour Beatty is working in Denver and their anti-collision project is a total

failure.

Paul Jones, Atherton, said there is a problem on the FTA grant beyond political. The

$600 million from CAHSRA is dependent on the FFGA. CBOSS is not functioning and not

shovel ready.

Jack Ringham said the commuter trains in New Year are electrified because in the

1920s New York passed a resolution prohibiting steam locomotives into the city. There is

no commuter line in the country that has ever converted from diesel to electric

because it is too expensive. Mr. Ringham said Tier 4 diesels will bring 80 to 90 percent of

the benefit of electrification at a lot less cost.

Doug DeLong, Mountain View, thanked Mr. Hartnett for his thoughtful comments on the

FFGA.

Charles Voltz, Burlingame, said what is not being said is that the application to the FTA

didn’t pass because it didn’t correctly show the 10 percent increase in capacity. There

has been no response from staff on this statement.



Page 5 of 12

Andy Chow, Redwood City, said Caltrain is the busiest commuter railroad west of the

Mississippi and is a very strong candidate for electrification. He asked that if for some

reason FTA feels it isn’t their responsibility to fund the system would it mean that certain

requirements such as Buy America wouldn’t have to be met.

Jeff Carter, Burlingame, said MetroLink has a number of lines and run more trains than

Caltrain, but the total ridership is much less than Caltrain. Caltrain should consider

moving ahead with the overhead catenary system if the FFGA isn’t signed so electric

locomotives could be used to pull the cars.

CALTRAIN SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN (SRTP) – DRAFT ELEMENTS

Sebastian Petty, Senior Policy Advisor, said:

The SRTP is a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) requirement that

looks out 10 years and informs the Regional Transportation Plan and the

Transportation Improvement Plan at a regional level. The core is a 10-year

projection of operations, service plan and what the budgetary needs will be.

Policy Framework draws on:

o Caltrain Strategic Plan

o MTC Transit sustainability Plan

o Existing work on Caltrain Modernization Program

o Prior Short Range Transit Plan in 2015

o State of good repair commitment by the Board in 2016

“Baseline” Scenario

o Fiscally constrained to funded services and projects

o Aligns SRTP with financial documents submitted to FTA

o Caltrain Business Plan will look beyond fiscally constrained baseline and

consider new projects, services and funding sources

Operating Plan Assumptions

o 2017-2020

Longer diesel trains

More seats and bikes on board

Reduced weekend service during electrification construction

Slow overall ridership growth

o 2021-2026

Mixed-fleet electrified service provides more service and increases

ridership

Ten trains per hour in the peak going to 12 trains per hour in the

peak in both directions

Increasing to 114 trains per day

30 minute frequency during the day

Maintaining hourly weekend service

Operating and Maintenance Costs and Savings

o Operating cost to Positive Train Control (PTC) system, costs to the

infrastructure of an electric system, and increased crew costs

o Savings from diesel fuel consumption and diesel vehicle maintenance

Revenues

o Ridership

Slow growth assumed during construction

Significant ridership increase assumed in 2021



Page 6 of 12

o Fare Increases

Average 7.5 percent on average fares every two years

Member Operating Contributions

o Member operating contributions account for 16 percent of current

Caltrain operating budget

o Projects assume member contributions will increase from current levels

starting in 2018 by about 50 percent.

Capital Improvement Plan

o State of Good Repair - $400 million over next 10 years and includes

cyclical work to tracks, stations, fencing, replacement of bridges,

refurbishing ticket vending machines and significant amount of state of

good repair work on the diesel rolling stock

o Caltrain Modernization Program - $2.26 billion

o Funded Enhancement Program - $246 million and is for projects and

programs that have discrete funding plans such as control point at

CP Brittan, 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project and the South

San Francisco Station Improvement Project

o Funding sources – Federal, State, regional, and local

Member Capital Contributions

o State of good repair and systemwide enhancements members pay an

annual contribution paid equally by members and historically it has been

$5 million per year per member agency, but the need is $7.5 million per

year per member agency

o Local enhancements (stations, access and grade separations)

Planned in coordination with Caltrain

Local funding from individual members

Next steps:

o Complete draft SRTP

o Provide a full drat to MTC, partners and public

o Request JPB adoption in late spring 2017

o Caltrain Business Plan

Director Guilbault asked how much the savings offsets the costs. Mr. Petty said the

overall cost of operating the system is going to go up. The cost per unit of service will

go down.

Director Bruins asked about the FTA guidance of maintaining three months of working

capital on hand. Mr. Petty said it is to show there is enough working capital reserve to

sustain three months of operation.

Director Bruins asked if there is currently an operational reserve policy. Mr. Petty said no.

Mr. Hartnett said something along this line this will be brought with the budget.

Director Bruins said this is a fiscally constrained plan and how long is the need to

increase member contributions for operating and capital. Mr. Petty said to maintain

the service and state of good repair the amount needed is for the 10-year plan.

Director Zmuda said as costs go up and costs per trip go down has staff been able to

identify what that gap is. Mr. Petty said it comes out to around $20 million range.



Page 7 of 12

Director Zmuda said when recommendations or proposals for fare increases are being

developed are benchmark studies done and how does Caltrain compare now to those

fare structures. Michelle Bouchard, Chief Operating Officer, Rail, said every time fares

are increased staff looks at regional peers and national agencies. She said with fare

increases there is a fare revenue target.

Director Zmuda asked where fares are now. Ms. Bouchard said Caltrain is in the high

middle.

Chair Gee asked the status of the fare study and the timing of it. Ms. Bouchard said a

lot of due diligence is being done and fare increase proposal will be brought forward

with the FY2018 budget presentation next month.

Public Comment

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said before fares are increased conductors need to start

checking tickets on bullet trains.

CALTRAIN BUSINESS PLAN

Mr. Petty said:

Since 2005:

o Ridership increasing while service held constant

o Declining operating subsidies and increased reliance on fare revenue

o Constrained capital funding

o Signature investment in modernization and commitment to blended

system

Operating funding from member contributions was $5 per passenger in 2005 and

now is $1 per passenger.

Farebox recovery is above 70 percent.

Operating metrics have gone up and subsidy has decreased.

Caltrain Modernization is $2.25 billion investment in the future of Caltrain

o Opportunity to improve service, grow ridership and reinvent the system

o Many challenges remain

Replacement and expansion of entire mainline diesel fleet not fully

funded

Other desired capital projects still require planning and funding

Financial Outlook

o Projections show that electrification will allow Caltrain to serve more riders

at a lower cost per passenger

o Caltrain projects ongoing annual need is $30-$40 million in operating

subsidies

o Need for capital funding also increasing as existing infrastructure and

fleet ages and new systems are added

o Caltrain will be at risk if member contributions fall short or if ridership

significantly declines

Need for a Business Plan

o Opportunity to maximize value of public investment in electrification

Need capital funding to complete conversion of the fleet and

modernize all aspects



Page 8 of 12

Need to look at the service being operated to ensure that it

supports the growing region and the diverse population served

Need to stabilize funding and revenue streams to support

operations and state of good repair

Opportunities in the future for local, State and regional funding

Key Objectives:

o Identify the near-term capital projects and services needed to fully realize

the public investment in electrification

o Develop cost, revenue and funding targets that support improved

services and ensure ongoing financial stability

o Define opportunities for the long-term expansion of the Caltrain system

o Engage with local, regional and State initiatives to secure new funding

Work Products

o Core Capital Expenditure Plan: defines near-term capital enhancements

and SOGR needs in summer 2017

o Core Business Plan: updates ridership forecasts and shows how to improve

service and stabilize Caltrain operating finances by focusing priorities,

implementing reforms and setting costs

o Expansion Blueprint: long range blueprint that considers expansion of

Caltrain beyond core system and services. Frames future engagement

with regional projects like Blended System, Dumbarton Rail and others

Next Steps

o Refine outreach plan

o Launch technical work

o Return to Board in last spring

Director Yeager left at 11:48 a.m.

Mark Simon, Chief of Staff, said there are fundamental questions such as how much

does Caltrain need and what are we going to do with it when we have it. If the public

is going to be asked for any type of help they are going to want to know what has

been done with all the money that you had and are you good stewards of the public’s

funds and have you done everything you can short of asking the public for help.

Mr. Simon said that is why the fare study is a critical step in the process. He said relying

on the partners to subsidize this is probably not a sustainable path forward.

Public Comment

John Barna, Sacramento, said he is a consultant for Prologis which owns the 4th and

King Station and he endorses the Business Plan planning effort. He is working with staff

on stationary planning ideas at 4th and King Station and will be working with staff on the

FTA funded North Terminal Study which should also be incorporated. Mr. Barna said

Prologis’s interest in stationery development is matched by private sector interest in

developing the Diridon Caltrain Station. The Business Plan should include for full

electrification.

Elizabeth Alexis, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, said she supports a

robust Business Plan. A Business Plan should be what Caltrain could and should be in

the future. Ms. Alexis said success of a ballot measure should come from the counties

that represent the JPB. She said data shows that Caltrain is the most efficient, but an



Page 9 of 12

underutilized mode of transit. Ms. Alexis said the dollar per passenger translates to $0.05

per passenger mile and she challenges any transit agency to match this number.

Caltrain can and should make the case for increased operations.

Jack Ringham, Atherton, said both the SRTP and Business Plan are based on the

assumption that Caltrain will be electrified and no consideration has been given in the

planning for the fact that the funding may not be received. He said Plan B seems to be

if the sources of funding go away other funding will be sought and will still electrify.

Mr. Ringham said both of the plans should be based on two assumptions the system is

electrified and the system isn’t.

Jeff Carter, Millbrae, said he commends staff for doing a Business Plan. He said Caltrain

needs a dedicated source of funding and this is the only transit agency that doesn’t

have its own dedicated permanent funding.

Vaughn Wolfe, Pleasanton, said if the purpose is to reduce congestion on the Highway

101 corridor then the Dumbarton Rail Corridor needs to be done. Running fewer longer

trains is more efficient than running more shorter trains.

Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, said it is exciting to see the process moving forward.

She is glad there is public participation and Friends of Caltrain would like to assist in this

outreach.

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said operating costs are done by boardings and there is no

structural deficient in San Jose or San Francisco, only San Mateo. He said if San Mateo

cannot afford their part maybe stations should be closed in San Mateo County.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Chair, Friends of Caltrain, thanked staff for starting to work on a

Business Plan. The public process should be out of the box and work with everyone.

Director Joèl Ramos said he looks forward going through the process and the outcome

it brings. He hopes this is not the only time the Board can weigh in on the Business Plan

and not when it comes back to the Board for adoption. Director Ramos said staff

should look at revenue from parking, leverage real estate holdings along the corridor,

commercials and ad revenue. He said staff should look not just locally, but nationally

and globally for assistance and ideas.

Director Dev Davis asked what the timeline is for the Business Plan. Mr. Petty said it will

match with the SRTP update, but will look out a bit further.

Director Davis asked if there will be timelines for service enhancements. Mr. Petty said

the Business Plan is the transformation of the system through the lens of money.

Director Davis said business plans in the private sector look at customers and who buys

the service, but she would like to look at businesses who don’t participate in the GO

Pass program. She said she didn’t hear anything about schedule coordination with

feeder agencies. Director Davis said if this report is longer range than 10 years then

staff should look at the impact on autonomous vehicles on ridership and parking fees.



Page 10 of 12

She said she would like to have a more public discussion and receive input before the

Plan is approved.

Director Bruins thanked staff for embarking on this Business Plan. She doesn’t think

10 years is the right timeframe and believes it should be longer. Director Bruins said she

hopes there can be more visibility on what the service delivery plan is post

electrification and what does that service delivery plan look like post HSR, the blended

system. She would like to get an understanding on what the key performance index

measures are. Director Bruins said she wants to make sure that the overarching

objective of the Business Plan isn’t lost and would also like to see progress and frequent

updates. She said for the next staff update she would like to know what the public

process will look like and the plan.

KEY CALTRAIN PERFORMANCE STATISTICS FEBRUARY 2017

Public Comment

Doug DeLong, Mountain View, said the mechanical department is doing an excellent

job.

AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CAPITAL CORRIDOR

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL $900,000 IN FUNDING AND TO

EXPAND THE SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE SOUTH TERMINAL PHASE III AND LOS GATOS

CREEK BRIDGE PROJECTS

Peter Skinner, Manager, Grants and Fund Programing, said the Capitol Corridor has

$900,000 they are unable to use and are giving it to the JPB for two projects.

Director Ramos left at 12:13 p.m.

Director Zmuda asked if this will produce any savings on the other project.

Mr. Skinner said yes.

Public Comment

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said it would be nice if staff refrained from any further plans in

the Diridon area until the San Jose City Council has an opportunity to reach out to the

community and come up with a set of recommendations for South Terminal Phase III.

Motion/Second: Guilbault/Davis

Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Guilbault, Zmuda, Gee

Absent: Pine, Ramos, Yeager

Director Ramos returned at 12:15 p.m.

AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE RAVENSWOOD AVENUE GRADE

SEPARATION PROJECT FOR A TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET FROM $526,585,568 to $526,751,568

Kathleen Kelly, Interim Chief Financial Officer, said this was a capital grant from the

San Mateo County Transportation Authority.



Page 11 of 12

Public Comment

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, spoke about money being moved around in the capital

budget.

Motion/Second: Davis/Zmuda

Ayes: Bruins, Davis, Guilbault, Ramos, Zmuda, Gee

Absent: Pine, Yeager

BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS

Director Guilbault asked about clarification on the MTC report brought up by two

members of the public.

Chair Gee said as the JPB representative on the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA)

he wanted to report the transit center is under construction with completion estimated

for December this year and revenue service around March 2018. He said at their last

meeting an asset manager was identified to start leasing the property and a letter has

been sent to the CAHSRA inviting them to join the Board of Directors. If they say yes the

City and County of San Francisco will be able to appoint another member to the

Board. Chair Gee said the next focus will be how to move the train from 4th and King

streets all the way to downtown.

DATE/TIME/PLACE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, May 4, 2017, 10 a.m. at San Mateo County Transit District Administrative

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

94070.

GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT

Public Comment

Roland Lebrun, San Jose, he is making a set of recommendations to go after some

people who are frauding the JPB. He said LTK Engineering who are the architects of the

CBOSS and EMU disasters and David Couch, DCLC, for deliberating misrepresenting the

current Caltrain capacity. Mr. Lebrun said this is not the first time Mr. Couch has had a

ding with the FTA. On the FTA website under the Buy America violations there are three

letters there from Houston Rail which is where Mr. Couch came from. He said he is

suggesting the Board consider suing the San Mateo County Transit District for breach of

trust and bringing Caltrain to disrepute.

Recessed to closed session at 12:23 p.m.

Reconvened to open session at 12:42 p.m.



Page 12 of 12

a) Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators Joan L. Cassman,

General Counsel, Brian W. Fitzpatrick, Manager, Real Estate and Property

Development, and Gary Cardona, Senior Real Estate Officer, pursuant to

Government Code Section 54956.8:

Under negotiation: Price and terms of contract.

Property Location Owner APN JPB Parcel #

200 Berkshire Avenue,

Redwood City

Michael A. Buenrostro/

Michelle Buenrostro

054-201-230 JPB-SM2-138

201 and 205

Dumbarton Avenue,

Redwood City

Caballero Family Trust 054-201-490 JPB-SM2-308

200 Dumbarton

Avenue, Redwood City

Redwood Apartments 054-201-560 JPB-SM2-310

Westside Avenue,

Redwood City

Del Rio Trust 054-201-550 JPB-SM2-311

b) Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing


Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. v. Parsons

Transportation Group et al; San Mateo County Superior Court

Case No. Case No. 17CIV00888

c) Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing


Parsons Transportation Group v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers

Board et al; San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. Case

No. 17CIV00786

Joan Cassman, Legal Counsel, reported authorization was sought by the Board and no

formal action was taken for Item a. She said the Board received a status report and no

formal action was taken on Items b and c.

Adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

Modernization Program Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)

March 2017

Monthly Progress Report

March 31, 2017

Funding Partners

FTA Core Capacity

FTA Section 5307 (Environmental / Pre Development only)

FTA Section 5307 (EMU only)

Prop 1B (Public Transportation Modernization & Improvement Account)

Caltrain Low Carbon Transit Operations Cap and Trade

Prop 1A

High Speed Rail Cap and Trade

Carl Moyer Fund

Bridge Tolls (Funds (RM1/RM2)

SFCTA/SFMTA

San Mateo (SMCTA) Contribution

SMCTA Measure A

VTA Measure A

Santa Clara (VTA) Contribution

San Francisco Contribution

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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project


Table of Contents i March 31, 2017

Table of Contents Page

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

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

2.1 Schedule .......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Budget ............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Board Actions .................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Government and Community Affairs ................................................................ 2-3

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF) Modifications .................................................................................................... 4-2

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 FUNDING .................................................................................................................... 9-1

10.0 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 10-1

11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ................................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Permits .......................................................................................................... 11-1

11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................ 11-1

12.0 UTILITY RELOCATION ............................................................................................ 12-1

13.0 REAL ESTATE ......................................................................................................... 13-1

14.0 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS ................................................................................ 14-1

15.0 GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ......................................................... 15-1

16.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION AND LABOR STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 16-1

17.0 PROCUREMENT ...................................................................................................... 17-1



Table of Contents ii March 31, 2017

18.0 TIMELINE OF MAJOR PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS ....................................... 18-1

List of Tables

Page

Table 2-1 Schedule Status ...................................................................................................... 2-3

Table 2-2 Budget and Expenditure Status ............................................................................... 2-3

Table 6-1 Quality Assurance Audit Summary .......................................................................... 6-2

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 10-1 Monthly Status of Risks ....................................................................................... 10-2

Table 10-2 Risk Classification ............................................................................................... 10-3

Table 13-1 Real Estate Acquisition Overview ........................................................................ 13-1

Table 14-1 Third-Party Agreement Status ............................................................................. 14-1

List of Figures

Page

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

Figure 9-1 Funding Plan .......................................................................................................... 9-1

List of Appendices

Page

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

Appendix B – Schedule ........................................................................................................... B-1



Background 1-1 March 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 March 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




The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) completed all administrative and statutory requirements for the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) of $647 million in Core Capacity. On February 17, the JPB was informed by the FTA that a decision was made to defer execution of the pending $647 million FFGA for the PCEP until the Administration developed the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Budget (anticipated in mid-June). In light of this news, the existing Limited Notice to Proceed (LNTP) with Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBI) for the Electrification Project and Stadler for the EMU Vehicles was extended to June 30, 2017. Staff continues to work aggressively with lobbyists and the numerous national, state and regional supporters to obtain FFGA approval.

The PCEP team continues work with Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBI) on 65% design and field investigations. The PCEP team completed review of the 65% overhead contact system (OCS) layout design for Segment 2 Work Areas 5 and 4. The PCEP team continues coordination efforts related to signal systems and also conducting utility survey, pothole location layouts, and geotechnical boring layouts.

The PCEP team continues to work with Stadler on the technical aspects of the project. The PCEP team participated in Stadler design review meetings on conceptual design reviews pertaining to interior design, wheelchair lifts, passenger information, and accessible lavatories. The PCEP team continues to address system-wide interface issues involving the emerging EMU design and the existing wayside infrastructure, the Electrification Project, the Communications-Based Overlay Signal System (CBOSS) Project.

2.1 Schedule

The Revenue Service Date (RSD) in the Master Program Schedule (MPS) remains unchanged. Without adjustment for contingency, the RSD is forecast as August 2021. With the addition of approximately five months of contingency to account for potential risk to the project, the RSD is anticipated as December 2021. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the current schedule and milestones. The overall schedule will be updated upon the execution of FFGA.

2.2 Budget

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

2.3 Board Actions

At the March 2, 2017 Board meeting, there were several items related to the PCEP:

Informational item on the PCEP Full Funding Grant Agreement update.

Informational item on the PCEP Monthly Report.

Authorize the Filing and Execution of Annual Cap and Trade Funding Application with the California State Department of Transportation to Receive $502,745 in California Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program Funds for the PCEP.




The agenda and meeting minutes for the March meeting can be found at the link below:

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Agendas/2017/2017-03-02+JPB+BOD+Agenda+Packet.pdf

(Note: For viewers accessing the link above electronically, please cut and paste the link into a browser if it does not direct you immediately to the document.)

Table 2-1 Schedule Status

Milestones1,2 Program

Plan January February

Receipt of FFGA 12/15/2016 02/15/2016 mid-June

Full Notice to Proceed (FNTP) to Electrification Contractor

N/A 03/01/2017 TBD

FNTP to EMU Manufacturer N/A 03/01/2017 TBD

Start of Electrification Major Construction

03/20/2017 07/24/2017 07/24/2017

First Eight Miles of Electrification Complete to Begin Testing

04/08/2019 10/08/2019 10/08/2019

Delivery of First Vehicle 06/25/2019 07/30/2019 07/30/2019

Start Pre-Revenue Operations 09/08/2020 09/22/2020 09/22/2020

Potential Limited Service 12/31/2020 12/31/2020 12/31/2020

RSD (w/ Risk Contingency) 12/30/2021 12/30/2021 12/30/2021

Notes: 1. Milestones reported on this table may differ from the current schedule. As the schedule continues to be refined over

the coming months to incorporate approved baseline schedules from the Electrification and EMU contractors, changes to milestones will be thoroughly vetted prior to reflecting those changes in the Monthly Report.

2. Program Plan only considered a Notice to Proceed (NTP). It did not account for an LNTP and FNTP.

Table 2-2 Budget and Expenditure Status

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

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D) (E) = (C) + (D)

Electrification Subtotal $ 1,316,125,208 $ 15,249,467 $ 162,734,241 $ 1,153,390,966 $ 1,316,125,208

EMU Subtotal $ 664,127,325 $ 13,402,793 $ 32,803,305 $ 631,324,020 $ 664,127,325

PCEP TOTAL $ 1,980,252,533 $ 28,652,260 $ 195,537,546 $ 1,784,714,986 $ 1,980,252,533

Notes regarding tables above: 1. Column B "Cost This Month" represents the cost of work performed this month.

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

2.4 Government and Community Affairs

A number of community relations and outreach events took place during the month of March. PCEP team participated in a total of 37 meetings with stakeholders.





Electrification - Infrastructure 3-1 March 31, 2017

3.0 ELECTRIFICATION – INFRASTRUCTURE

This section reports on the progress of the Electrification, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and Tunnel Modification components. A brief description on each of the components is provided below.

3.1 Electrification

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 (Hz), single phase, alternating current supply system consisting of two traction power substations (TPS), one switching station (SS), and seven paralleling stations (PS). Electrification will be performed using a Design-Build (DB) delivery method.

Activity This Month

The PCEP team continued working with BBI on the 65% design and field investigations. The PCEP team completed reviews of the 65% OCS Layout Design for Segment 2, Work Areas 5 and 4. Comments for those review packages were submitted back to the contractors. Signal submittals for Segment 4 were received and reviewed as well as Communications designs, which included a walkthrough of the Backup Operational Control Center (Menlo Park) with the BBI design team. Traction Power site and system specifications were received and are being reviewed. The interim load flow analysis was received and is under review.

The PCEP and BBI teams continued to hold regular workshop meetings to discuss design related to the signal system, including the conversion from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) and the Constant Warning Time solution. The teams held discussions with outside stakeholders, such as Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and local jurisdictions, regarding design and solution of the signal system. The PCEP team continues to work with Caltrain Engineering and Construction to provide updated signal drawings to BBI for advancement of 65% design.

BBI continued conducting utility surveys and pothole location layouts. Physical geotechnical boring and cone penetrometer tests (CPT) on the Caltrain right of way (ROW) were completed in Segments 1 and 3. Test results of geotechnical borings are being compiled by BBI.

Potholing of utilities at proposed OCS locations continued in Segment 2. Results from potholing are used for design purposes in the 65% design submittals.

Potholing of signal cables for signal design and construction began in Segment 4.

Coordination efforts with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) continued for infrastructure improvements and traction power substation interconnects. PCEP team continues to work with PG&E for the finalization of Power Quality and Protection Scheme Studies. The contractor is interviewing PG&E preferred teams for the interconnection with PG&E at both Traction Power Substations.




Activity Next Month

The PCEP team will continue to work with BBI on design and field investigation activities. The designs will include the continued progression of the OCS and Signal systems along with advancement of design for Traction Power and other civil infrastructures.

Continue potholing activities at proposed OCS locations. Potholing will move into Segment 4 in support of BBI’s design schedule.

Continue potholing of signal cables in Segment 4 in support of signal system design.

Begin testing and inspection of signal cables in support of signal system design.

Coordination efforts will continue with PG&E on interconnection design and final design for PG&E infrastructure. The PCEP and BBI teams will continue design and coordination of the 115 kV interconnections between PG&E and Caltrain’s future substations. Review meetings are held every two weeks.

3.2 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)

SCADA is a system that monitors and controls field devices for electrification, including substations, paralleling stations and sectionalization. SCADA will be integrated with the base operating system for Caltrain Operations and Control, which is the Rail Operations Center System (ROCS).

Activity This Month

Activity continues to be limited to providing technical support on an as needed basis to the Caltrain Contract and Procurement (C&P) Department for the procurement of the SCADA system.

Contract documents have been issued to SCADA contractor for preparation of proposal. The proposal is expected to be received in May.

Activity Next Month

PCEP staff will continue to support Caltrain Contracts and Procurement Department on providing technical support during the procurement process.




3.3 Tunnel Modification

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 and Construction has requested the PCEP team to 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 (DBB) construction package. Construction will occur concurrently with the Electrification 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.

PCEP team continued coordination efforts with UPRR and other stakeholders.

The PCEP team completed 95% design drawings and specifications. The design package was submitted to Caltrain Engineering and Construction for review and comment.

Activity Next Month

UPRR will be provided 95% drawings for review and comment.

PCEP staff will review and resolve comments on 95% design drawings and specifications.

PCEP staff will continue work on constructability report for Caltrain Engineering and Construction review.

PCEP staff will begin to advance design for 100% Plans and Specifications.



Electric Multiple Units 4-1 March 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 visited the PCEP team in San Mateo for numerous purposes during the period of March 27th through April 5th, 2017. Design reviews and meetings were conducted with Stadler and PCEP representatives, including:

o Conceptual Design Reviews pertaining to: Car Interior Design, Train Control, Wheelchair Lifts, Monitoring and Diagnostics, Communications, Passenger Information, and Lighting, and Accessible Lavatories

o An Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) coordination meeting on March 30th with Stadler, LTK and DB team

o Review of Interior Mockup and Lavatory Mockup

o Stadler visit to CEMOF, including the Drill Track and College Park’s possible delivery site

Stadler continued to progress numerous management submittals, including a MPS, an updated Contract Deliverables Requirement List (CDRL), and updated System Safety and Quality Assurance Plans. The PCEP team is currently reviewing these submittals and working with Stadler to finalize these deliverables.

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

Activity Next Month

PCEP team will review for approval several documents including the Quality Assurance Plan, the MPS, the System Safety Plan and CDRL. PCEP team’s approval of the MPS and Quality Plan are prerequisites for upcoming milestone payments to Stadler.

The mockup of the engineer’s cab and console controls will be review by members of Caltrain Operations, Maintenance and PCEP representatives.



Electric Multiple Units 4-2 March 31, 2017

4.1 Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility (CEMOF) Modifications

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

Activity This Month

The PCEP team advanced the conceptual design to consider alternatives for the modification of CEMOF. The alternatives continue to be reviewed with Caltrain Operations.

Activity Next Month

Caltrain to decide on which alternative shall be pursued for 35% design development purposes.



Safety 5-1 March 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

Safety staff continued to review BBI and Stadler’s safety and security contract documentation deliverables to ensure they meet PCEP requirements. Safety staff has been facilitating meetings with BBI and Stadler to advance project safety and security program implementation.

Field visits were conducted to work sites to ensure that the Site Specific Work Plan (SSWP) was being followed by BBI and their subcontractors.

A Fire/Life Safety Committee meeting was held on March 10, 2017 for the PCEP project. Representatives from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), transit police and local fire departments all participated

Revisions to the Safety and Security Management Plan are underway to address the Project Management Oversight Contractor’s comments. Document expected to be revised by April 12, 2017.

The PCEP team met with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to discuss the 16th Street crossing in compliance with environmental mitigation measures, which call for technical coordination with the PCEP and SFMTA regarding re-routing of the 22 Electric Trolley Bus. Internal meetings were held to finalize the projects comments on the analysis.

Activity Next Month

Monthly meeting for the Safety and Security Certification Review Committee (SSCRC) will be held.

Monthly meeting for the Fire/Life Safety & Security Committee (FLSSC) will be held.

All staff safety meetings will be held with PCEP, BBI employees and subcontractors to reinforce the importance of safety in the field.

Site visits to BBI subcontractor work areas for potholing operations are planned.



Quality Assurance 6-1 March 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

The audit of BBI’s design quality control and the OCS 65% design package remains open until the Design Quality Plan has been revised to include changes prompted by the audit findings.

An audit of Signet Testing Labs has been closed.

QA review of Stadler’s BBI’s Quality Management Plan (QMP), which includes a Design Quality Plan, was previously conducted with comments outstanding.

Staff meetings with BBI QA/Quality Control (QC) management representatives continue bi-weekly.

QA staff submitted to PCEP Management a QA Resource Plan for 2017 and beyond for a QA Engineer and a QA Independent Testing Lab - and both requests have been approved.

A pre-award audit was conducted at Construction Testing Services Laboratories and the lab had one finding.

An audit of BBII/PGH Wong’s Traction Power Design submittal at 65% was performed and there were no findings.



Quality Assurance 6-2 March 31, 2017

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 1 20

Audit Findings

Audit Findings Issued 1 16

Audit Findings Open 41 3

Audit Findings Closed 11 13

Non-Conformances

Non-Conformances Issued 02 4

Non-Conformances Open 0 0

Non-Conformances Closed 0 4

Notes regarding tables above: 1. One audit finding was opened and closed within the same period.

2. One non-conformance was mistakenly reported open in February’s report.

Activity Next Month

Three audits are planned and scheduled: Alstom Signals Design Package at 65%, Kleinfelder Testing Services, and PGH Wong Design Package for Communications at 65%.

QA review of Stadler’s QMP Design Quality Plan (DQP) revision for EMU procurement.

Regularly scheduled design reviews and surveillances will begin on project design packages and will continue through the late summer.

Finalization of the BBII Incentive Plan reporting and formatting will be calculated for 4Q 2016.



Schedule 7-1 March 31, 2017

7.0 SCHEDULE

The schedule provided in this Monthly Progress Report is the approved schedule from February 2017 due to the timeframe necessary to update and approve the schedule. As indicated in Table 7-1, the RSD, which is the date in which the project is deemed completed, remains unchanged in the MPS. Without adjustment for contingency, the RSD is forecast as August 2021. With the addition of approximately five months contingency to account for potential risk to the project, the RSD is anticipated as December 2021. A summary of the overall schedule status for the PCEP is provided in Table 7-1, which provides comparisons between the baseline schedule (Program Plan), the previous update (January 2017) and the current update (February 2017) to capture any potential changes in the schedule. A complete summary schedule can be found in Appendix B.

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

Due to delays to Federal Funding (FFGA), FNTP’s will not be issued to the Electrification contractor and EMU manufacturer on the forecasted date of March 1, 2017. It is anticipated that an FFGA will be issued as part of the President’s budget by June 2017. As such, the MPS will be frozen until the impact of the delayed FNTPs will have on the overall schedule are better understood.

Table 7-1 Schedule Status

Milestones1,2 Program

Plan January February

Receipt of FFGA 12/15/2016 02/15/2016 mid-June

FNTP to Electrification Contractor N/A 03/01/2017 TBD

FNTP to EMU Manufacturer N/A 03/01/2017 TBD

Start of Electrification Major Construction

03/20/2017 07/24/2017 07/24/2017

First Eight Miles of Electrification Complete to Begin Testing

04/08/2019 10/08/2019 10/08/2019

Delivery of First Vehicle 06/25/2019 07/30/2019 07/30/2019

Start Pre-Revenue Operations 09/08/2020 09/22/2020 09/22/2020

Potential Limited Service 12/31/2020 12/31/2020 12/31/2020

RSD (w/ Risk Contingency) 12/30/2021 12/30/2021 12/30/2021

Notes: 1 Milestones reported on this table may differ from the current schedule. As the schedule continues to be

refined over the coming months to incorporate approved baseline schedules from the Electrification and EMU contractors, changes to milestones will be thoroughly vetted prior to reflecting those changes in the Monthly Report.

2 Program Plan only considered an NTP. It did not account for an LNTP and FNTP.



Schedule 7-2 March 31, 2017

Table 7-2 Critical Path Summary

Activity Start Finish

Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) 1 mid-June mid-June

Electrification Design to Begin Major Construction 09/06/2016 07/21/2017

EMU Design to Delivery of First Carbody 09/06/2016 10/13/2017

Electrification OCS Construction 07/24/2017 02/26/2020

Electrification Acceptance & Integrated Testing 02/26/2020 04/25/2020

PG&E Complete Infrastructure Upgrades to Provide Permanent Power1

08/31/2020 08/31/2020

Vehicle Manufacturing & Assembly to Provide First Five Trainsets

11/13/2017 09/09/2020

Pre-Revenue Operations 09/22/2020 12/10/2020

Potential Limited Service1 12/31/2020 12/31/2020

RSD w/out Risk Contingency1 08/16/2021 08/16/2021

RSD w/ Risk Contingency1 12/30/2021 12/30/2021

Note: 1Milestone activity

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

WBS Activity Responsibility

Utilities PG&E Supplemental Agreement #3 for Final Design Approval (on hold until FFGA)

Project Delivery

Utilities PG&E Final Design (on hold until FFGA) Project Delivery

Utilities Overhead Utility Relocation Project Delivery



Budget and Expenditures 8-1 March 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

Cost This Month Cost To Date

Estimate To Complete

Estimate At Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D) (E) = (C) + (D)

ELECTRIFICATION

Electrification3 $ 696,610,558 $ 13,217,800 $ 82,821,150 $ 613,789,408 $ 696,610,558

Tunnel Notching $ 11,029,649 $ - $ - $ 11,029,649 $ 11,029,649

Real Estate $ 28,503,369 $ 360,238 $ 6,171,543 $ 22,331,826 $ 28,503,369

Private Utilities $ 63,515,298 $ 343,084 $ 4,595,656 $ 58,919,642 $ 63,515,298

Management Oversight4 $ 141,526,164 $ 968,419 $ 65,174,524 $ 76,351,640 $ 141,526,164

Executive Management $ 7,452,866 $ 64,064 $ 2,980,459 $ 4,472,407 $ 7,452,866

Planning $ 7,281,997 $ 54,432 $ 4,380,940 $ 2,901,057 $ 7,281,997

Community Relations $ 2,789,663 $ 32,397 $ 952,194 $ 1,837,469 $ 2,789,663

Safety & Security $ 2,421,783 $ 30,322 $ 559,939 $ 1,861,844 $ 2,421,783

Project Management Services $ 19,807,994 $ 187,095 $ 7,460,381 $ 12,347,613 $ 19,807,994

Engineering & Construction $ 11,805,793 $ 24,915 $ 1,946,473 $ 9,859,320 $ 11,805,793

Electrification Engineering &

Management $ 50,461,707 $ 393,008 $ 16,288,130 $ 34,173,577 $ 50,461,707

IT Support $ 331,987 $ - $ 331,987 $ 0 $ 331,987

Operations Support $ 1,445,867 $ - $ 393,816 $ 1,052,051 $ 1,445,867

General Support $ 4,166,577 $ 70,273 $ 1,420,943 $ 2,745,634 $ 4,166,577

Budget / Grants / Finance $ 1,229,345 $ 4,636 $ 260,122 $ 969,222 $ 1,229,345

Legal $ 2,445,646 $ 50,032 $ 2,118,584 $ 327,062 $ 2,445,646

Other Direct Costs $ 5,177,060 $ 57,244 $ 1,747,198 $ 3,429,862 $ 5,177,060

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

TASI Support $ 55,275,084 $ 300,000 $ 1,753,391 $ 53,521,693 $ 55,275,084

Insurance $ 4,305,769 $ - $ 1,155,769 $ 3,150,000 $ 4,305,769

Environmental Mitigations $ 14,972,645 $ - $ 472,000 $ 14,500,645 $ 14,972,645

Required Projects $ 17,337,378 $ - $ 367,028.00 $ 16,970,350 $ 17,337,378

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

Finance Charges $ 5,056,838 $ 59,927 $ 223,180 $ 4,833,658 $ 5,056,838

Contingency $ 276,970,649 $ - $ - $ 276,970,649 $ 276,970,649

Owner's Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

ELECTRIFICATION SUBTOTAL $ 1,316,125,208 $ 15,249,467 $ 162,734,241 $ 1,153,390,966 $ 1,316,125,208



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

4. The agency labor is actual through January 2017 and accrued from February 2017 to current reporting period.



Budget and Expenditures 8-2 March 31, 2017

Table 8-2 EMU Budget & Expenditure Status

Description of Work Budget Cost This Month Cost To Date

Estimate To

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D) (E) = (C) + (D)

EMU $ 550,899,459 $ 12,675,840 $ 13,918,140 $ 536,981,319 $ 550,899,459

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

Management Oversight3 $ 64,139,103 $ 660,952 $ 18,748,377 $ 45,390,726 $ 64,139,103

Executive Management $ 5,022,302 $ 47,968 $ 1,682,551 $ 3,339,751 $ 5,022,302

Community Relations $ 1,685,614 $ 14,767 $ 323,019 $ 1,362,595 $ 1,685,614

Safety & Security $ 556,067 $ 7,648 $ 170,595 $ 385,473 $ 556,067

Project Management Services $ 13,275,280 $ 114,540 $ 5,001,902 $ 8,273,379 $ 13,275,280

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

EMU Engineering &

Management $ 32,082,556 $ 385,154 $ 8,385,445 $ 23,697,111 $ 32,082,556

IT Support $ 1,027,272 $ 11,341 $ 252,005 $ 775,267 $ 1,027,272

Operations Support $ 1,878,589 $ - $ 298,097 $ 1,580,491 $ 1,878,589

General Support $ 2,599,547 $ 17,412 $ 666,229 $ 1,933,318 $ 2,599,547

Budget / Grants / Finance $ 712,123 $ 916 $ 137,395 $ 574,728 $ 712,123

Legal $ 1,207,500 $ 25,713 $ 731,308 $ 476,192 $ 1,207,500

Other Direct Costs $ 4,003,139 $ 35,493 $ 1,076,014 $ 2,927,125 $ 4,003,139

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

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

Finance Charges $ 1,941,800 $ 66,001 $ 136,788 $ 1,805,012 $ 1,941,800

Contingency $ 38,562,962 $ - $ - $ 38,562,962 $ 38,562,962

Owner's Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

EMU SUBTOTAL3 $ 664,127,325 $ 13,402,793 $ 32,803,305 $ 631,324,020 $ 664,127,325



3. The agency labor is actual through January 2017 and accrued for February 2017 to current reporting period.

Table 8-3 PCEP Budget & Expenditure Status

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

Complete

Estimate At

Completion

(A) (B)1 (C)

2 (D) (E) = (C) + (D)

Electrification Subtotal $ 1,316,125,208 $ 15,249,467 $ 162,734,241 $ 1,153,390,966 $ 1,316,125,208

EMU Subtotal $ 664,127,325 $ 13,402,793 $ 32,803,305 $ 631,324,020 $ 664,127,325

PCEP TOTAL $ 1,980,252,533 $ 28,652,260 $ 195,537,546 $ 1,784,714,986 $ 1,980,252,533



.



Funding 9-1 March 31, 2017

9.0 FUNDING

Figure 9-1 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 reported, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) informed the JPB it would be deferring execution of the FFGA until the Administration developed the President’s FY2018 Budget. Caltrain staff continue to work with the FTA, legislators and other project stakeholders to secure the FFGA for the project.

Figure 9-1 Funding Plan



Risk Management 10-1 March 31, 2017

10.0 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. The team has identified the following items as top risks for the project:

Delay in execution of FFGA would cause a delay in issuing FNTP.

Upgrades to the PG&E power stations for permanent power may not be designed and constructed in time for initiation of limited revenue service.

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 the DB contractor’s construction schedule.

As-built drawings furnished to DB contractor could be incomplete thus affecting final design.

Delays to the CBOSS Project could affect testing activities.

TASI’s ability to deliver sufficient resources to support construction and testing for the electrification contract may cause delays to construction schedule.

Relocation of underground utilities must precede construction of catenary pole foundations and may not be completed on time to meet the DB Contractor’s construction schedule.

Inconsistencies within internal processes, such as the Site Specific Work Plan, could delay decision making and approvals.

Grade crossing design modifications could result in delays.

The absence of key personnel to lead the system integration effort could result in a lack of coordination.

Activity This Month

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 PCEP Risk Management Team attended Electrification, Project Delivery, and Systems Integration meetings to monitor developments associated with risks and to identify new risks.

The Risk Assessment Committee convened to review risks proposed for retirement and major changes to grading of risks. Grading of two risks were revised. One risk was submitted for escalation. One risk was reviewed in detail by the committee. A decision was made to initiate risk management coordination with the DB contractor in June.

Tables 10-1 and 10-2 show the risks identified for the program. Risks are categorized as: top risk, upcoming risk, long lead, 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. Long-lead risks are risks for which mitigating action must be taken as much as a year or more into the future. All other risks are risks not falling into other categories.

Table 10-1 Monthly Status of Risks

Total Number of Active Risks = 104




Table 10-2 Risk Classification

Total Number of Active Risks = 104

Activity Next Month

Update risk descriptions, effects, mitigations and retirement dates.

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



Environmental 11-1 March 31, 2017

11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

11.1 Permits

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 (USACE), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (SFBCDC).

Section 106 of the NHPA process as well as Section 7 of the ESA process have concluded.

Activity This Month

All environmental permits have been obtained.

Activity Next Month

There are no planned permit activities in the next month.

11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

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 MMRP is available on the Caltrain website:

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+Documents/MMRP.pdf

(Note: For viewers accessing the link above electronically, please cut and paste the link into a

browser if it does not direct you immediately to the document.)

Activity This Month

Biological, archaeological, and Native American monitors continued to be present during design phase investigation activities (geotechnical and potholing activities) occurring in areas that require environmental compliance monitoring. The monitoring was conducted in accordance with measures in the MMRP in an effort to minimize potential impact on sensitive environmental resources.





Environmental 11-2 March 31, 2017

Protocol-level surveys for sensitive avian species continued at previously identified potential habitat locations.

Surveys for nesting birds ahead of design phase activities continued (nesting bird season is February 1st through August 31st).

Activity Next Month

Biological, archaeological, and Native American monitors will continue to monitor design phase investigation activities (geotechnical and potholing activities) occurring in areas that require environmental compliance monitoring. Biological surveyors will continue surveys for nesting birds ahead of design phase investigation activities occurring during the nesting bird season (February 1st through August 31st) and will continue to conduct protocol level surveys for sensitive avian species.



Utility Relocation 12-1 March 31, 2017

12.0 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

PCEP team continued monthly coordination meetings with telecommunication and power utilities. These meetings focused on overall project and relocation schedules, designation of responsibilities, applicable design standards, and reconciliation of agreements and records.

Work continued with all utilities on review of overhead utility line relocations based on the current preliminary design. This effort is expected to continue for the next several months to support identification and confirmation, agreements, and design of all relocations.

PCEP team sent draft relocation notices to other utility owners on the Caltrain ROW.

PCEP team continued to work with Verizon on the relocation of fiber optics cable within the Caltrain ROW.

Activity Next Month

Monthly meetings will continue with telecom and power carriers.

PCEP team will continue to coordinate with utility owners on the next steps of relocations, including support of any required design information.

PCEP team will continue to work with utility owners to update the relocation schedule.



Real Estate 13-1 March 31, 2017

13.0 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 (i.e., traction power stations, switching stations and paralleling stations). 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 13-1 below provides a brief summary of the Real Estate acquisition overview for the project.

The RE team continues negotiations on offers pending, including working through relocation of two commercial businesses.

The agency continues to negotiate the cooperative agreement for eminent domain authority with the City and County of San Francisco. The target for completion is May 2017.

In Segment 2, three appraisals were updated and one new appraisal was completed and offers will be made in this month.

Activity Next Month

Negotiations for all outstanding offers will continue.

The PCEP team issued work directives to appraise and acquire parcels in Segments 1 and 3 and appraisals commenced, with all expected to be completed in May.

Table 13-1 Real Estate Acquisition Overview

Segment No. of

Parcels Needed

*

No. of Appraisals Completed

Offers Presented

Offers Accepted

Acquisition Status

Escrow Closed

Value Litigation

Parcel Possession

Segment 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment 2 27 26 21 13 11 0 11

Segment 3 11 2 0 0 0 0 0

Segment 4 9 9 8 0 0 0 0

Total 55 37 29 13 11 0 11

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.



Third Party Agreements 14-1 March 31, 2017

14.0 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 14-1 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 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Executed

Transportation

& Railroad

Construction & Maintenance Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Executed3

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

Trackage Rights Union Pacific Railroad (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 and 5 have been executed. Supplemental agreements 3 and 4 are to be negotiated and executed.

3. Utilizing existing agreements.

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



Government and Community Affairs 15-1 March 31, 2017

15.0 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 in March:

Presentations/Meetings

– Caltrain / 101 Corridor Vision

– New LPMG Member Briefing w/ Councilmember Watanabe

– City/County Staff Coordinating Group

– JPB Bicycle Advisory Committee

– Local Policy Maker Group

– Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

– Caltrain Commuter Coalition (2)

– SAMCEDA (2)

– Peninsula Corridor Working Group (2)

– CalSTA

– Menlo Park Chamber

– Assemblymember Scott Wiener

– Sunnyvale Study Committee

– Washington DC Advocacy Trip (met with Federal Transit Administration Officials; Federal Railroad Administration Officials; individual members of the CA Republican and Democratic Delegation; House and Senate Appropriations Committee Members; House and Senate Authorizing Committee Members; individual Members where jobs would be created as a result of the PCEP such as in Utah; and advocacy partners)

Third Party/Stakeholder Actions

– None to report.



DBE Participation 16-1 March 31, 2017

16.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION AND LABOR STATISTICS

DBE and labor statistics will be reported after construction has commenced.



Procurement 17-1 March 31, 2017

17.0 PROCUREMENT

Contract Activity

No contract activities for March.

Invitation for Bid (IFB)/Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/ Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued this Month:

RFP #17-J-U-77 - Issued for On-Call Consulting Support Services for PG&E Infrastructure Improvements for PCEP.

RFP #17-J-U-076 - Issued for On-Call Technical Consulting Support Services for PG&E’s Substations for PCEP.

RFP #17-J-S-061- Issued for Advanced Information Management (AIM) Traction Power Supervisory and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System for PCEP.

IFB/RFQ/RFP Received this Month:

RFQ #17-J-Q-072 – Received quote from JBR Partners, Inc., for Ambassador Services (Short-term Purchase Order).

Contract Awards this Month:

No contract awards were made for March.

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

Multiple WDs & POs were issued to support the program needs for March.

Upcoming IFB/RFQ/RFP:

RFP - On-Call Ambassador Support Services. (Issue in Late April).

RFP - On-Call Quality Assurance Independent Testing Laboratory (Issue in Late April).

Upcoming Contract Awards:

Contract #17-J-Q-072 - Ambassador Services (Short-term Purchase Order).



Timeline 18-1 March 31, 2017

18.0 TIMELINE OF MAJOR PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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

Date Milestone

2001 Began Federal NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) / State Environmental

Impact Report (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 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Electrification

Request for Information for EMU

2015 JPB Approves Final CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

JPB Approves Issuance of RFP for Electrification

JPB Approves Issuance of RFP for EMU

Receipt of Electrification 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 BAFOs

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 BBI, the apparent best-value Electrification firm

JPB Approves Contract Award (LNTP) BBI

JPB Approves Contract Award (LNTP) Stadler

FTA approval of Entry into Engineering for the Core Capacity Program

Application for Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

2017 FTA finalized the FFGA for $647 million in Core Capacity funding, met all

regulatory requirements including end of Congressional Review Period

(Feb 2017)



Appendices March 31, 2017

APPENDICES



Appendix A March 31, 2017

Appendix A – Acronyms



Acronyms A-1 March 31, 2017

AIM Advanced Information Management

ARINC Aeronautical Radio, Inc.

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BBI 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

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 Railway 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



Schedule B-1 March 31, 2017

Appendix B – Schedule

# Activity Name Duration Start Finish

1 MASTER CPM SCHEDULE C15.08 2001d 05/01/14 A 12/30/21

2 MILESTONES 2001d 05/01/14 A 12/30/21

3 PLANNING / APPROVALS PHASE 929d 05/01/14 A 11/22/17

4 ENVIRONMENTAL 466d 05/01/14 A 02/11/16 A

5 DESIGN/BUILDER PROCUREMENT 596d 05/01/14 A 09/02/16 A

6 AGENCY COORDINATION / APPROVALS 688d 10/01/14 A 06/15/17

7 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 551d 04/16/15 A 06/15/17

8 JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS 635d 10/01/14 A 03/31/17

9 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 515d 11/03/14 A 11/10/16 A

10 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 636d 11/03/14 A 05/04/17

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 322d 02/02/15 A 05/05/16 A

12 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 221d 06/18/15 A 04/29/16 A

13 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 242d 06/18/15 A 05/31/16 A

14 LABOR AGREEMENT 128d 01/02/15 A 07/02/15 A

15 UTILITIES 494d 04/01/15 A 03/10/17

16 PERMITS 468d 12/01/14 A 09/30/16 A

17 RIGHT-OF-WAY 732d 02/02/15 A 11/22/17

18 SCADA 559d 03/30/15 A 06/08/17

19 DESIGN / ENGINEERING PHASE 960d 10/01/14 A 07/12/18

20 PG&E INFRASTRUCTURE 325d 04/03/17 07/12/18

21 TUNNEL MODIFICATION 865d 10/31/14 A 03/29/18

22 CEMOF 804d 10/01/14 A 11/30/17

23 VEHICLES PHASE 1902d 05/01/14 A 08/13/21

24 SPECIFICATION 134d 07/01/14 A 01/12/15 A

25 PROCUREMENT 613d 05/01/14 A 09/06/16 A

26 DETAILED DESIGN (STADLER) 364d 09/06/16 A 02/12/18

27 PROCUREMENT (MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT) (STADLER) 416d 01/09/17 A 08/24/18

28 MOCK-UPS (STADLER) 202d 12/15/16 A 09/29/17

29 ELECTRIC LOCO 834d 03/01/17 06/10/20

30 MANUFACTURING, TESTING, & TAKE OVER (STADLER) 953d 11/13/17 08/13/21

31 CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION PHASE 820d 06/08/17 08/31/20

32 PG&E INFRASTRUCTURE 699d 12/01/17 08/31/20

33 TUNNEL MODIFICATION 293d 03/30/18 05/24/19

34 SCADA 731d 06/08/17 04/24/20

35 CEMOF 109d 12/01/17 05/04/18

36 TESTING / STARTUP PHASE 426d 04/27/20 12/30/21

37 PRE-REVENUE OPERATIONS 236d 09/10/20 08/13/21

38 REVENUE OPERATIONS 172d 12/11/20 08/16/21

39 RISK CONTINGENCY 426d 04/27/20 12/30/21

40 OPERATIONAL READINESS PHASE 791d 08/15/17 09/24/20

41 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE STAFFING 543d 08/15/17 10/03/19

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 Q1 Q22014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

MASTER CPM SCHEDULE C15.08... Data Date: 03/01/17 _PCEP C15.08 Summary FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 03/27/17 13:21

Prog Plan (C14.02)

Last Months Update

Progress

Remaining

Near Critical

Critical

Start Milestone

Finish Milestone

Prog Plan (C14.02)

Last Months Update

Critical Milestone

Risk Contingency

Page 1 of 2

Filename: _C15.08 031617...

Date Revision Checked Approved03/17/2017 Updates & Revisions Completed By A. Christofas & S. Iyer03/21/2017 Checked By S. Iyer & A. Christofas x03/22/2017 Approved By R. Viswanathan x

# Activity Name Duration Start Finish

42 NON-REVENUE EQUIPMENT 258d 09/20/19 09/24/20

43 SPARES 258d 09/20/19 09/24/20

44 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE TRAINING 255d 08/15/17 08/15/18

45 LOCAL AGENCY TRAINING 64d 05/08/18 08/07/18

46 ELECTRIFICATION SCHEDULE (BB) 030117 1606d 09/06/16 A 10/13/20

47 General 1606d 09/06/16 A 10/13/20

48 Design 1359d 09/06/16 A 02/25/20

49 All Work Areas 1359d 09/06/16 A 02/25/20

50 Segments 2 WA 5 385d 09/07/16 A 08/31/17

51 Segment 2 WA 4 & 5 380d 11/16/16 A 11/05/17

52 Segment 2 WA 4 445d 09/07/16 A 10/26/17

53 Segment 2 & 4 490d 09/07/16 A 12/08/17

54 Segment 4 650d 09/12/16 A 05/11/18

55 Segment 2 559d 09/07/16 A 02/10/18

56 Segment 2 Wa's 1, 2, & 3- 475d 10/12/16 A 12/28/17

57 Segment 1 & 3 821d 09/19/16 A 10/24/18

58 Segment 1 736d 02/02/17 A 12/20/18

59 Segment 3 886d 01/23/17 A 04/29/19

60 Submittals 196d 09/06/16 A 03/07/17

61 Procurement 644d 01/30/17 A 09/22/18

62 All Work Areas 275d 01/30/17 A 02/27/18

63 Segment 4 192d 07/25/17 01/20/18

64 Segment 2 216d 06/10/17 12/27/17

65 Segment 1 414d 09/01/17 09/22/18

66 Segment 3 345d 09/01/17 07/19/18

67 Permits 478d 03/01/17 01/18/19

68 Construction / Installation 1298d 11/02/16 A 02/26/20

69 Segment 4 955d 03/01/17 08/09/19

70 Segment 2 974d 11/02/16 A 04/29/19

71 Segment 1 1135d 03/31/17 02/24/20

72 Segment 3 1138d 03/31/17 02/26/20

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 Q1 Q22014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

MASTER CPM SCHEDULE C15.08... Data Date: 03/01/17 _PCEP C15.08 Summary FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 03/27/17 13:21

Prog Plan (C14.02)

Last Months Update

Progress

Remaining

Near Critical

Critical

Start Milestone

Finish Milestone

Prog Plan (C14.02)

Last Months Update

Critical Milestone

Risk Contingency

Page 2 of 2

Filename: _C15.08 031617...

Date Revision Checked Approved03/17/2017 Updates & Revisions Completed By A. Christofas & S. Iyer03/21/2017 Checked By S. Iyer & A. Christofas x03/22/2017 Approved By R. Viswanathan x

AGENDA ITEM # 10

MAY 4, 2017

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STAFF REPORT

TO: Joint Powers Board

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett

Executive Director

FROM: Kathleen Kelly

Interim Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING

MARCH 31, 2017, AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

ACTION

Staff proposes that the Board accept and enter into the record the Statement of

Revenue and Expenditure for the month of March 2017 and supplemental information.

SIGNIFICANCE

Revenues: For March of Fiscal year 2017, Total Operating Revenue (line 7) is $3,101,997

or 4.2 percent better than budget. Within total operating revenue, Farebox Revenue

(line 1) is 1,174,784 or 1.8 percent better than budget. Compared to the prior year, Total

Operating Revenue (line 7) is $5,107,090 or 7.1 percent higher.

Expense: Grand Total Expenses (line 50) show a favorable variance of $13,955,502 or

12.7 percent. Total Operating Expense (line 36) is $11,182,101 or 12.2 percent better

than budget. Total Administrative Expense (line 46) is $2,789,074 or 15.7 percent better

than budget.

Compared to prior year, Grand Total Expenses (line 50) are $3,449,723 or 3.7 percent

higher.

Use of Reserves: For March 2017, the JPB did not use its reserves, mostly due to direct

savings from fuel and lubricants.

BUDGET IMPACT

There are no budget revisions for the month of March 2017.

Prepared By: Maria Pascual, Accountant 650.508.6214

Sheila Tioyao, Manager, General Ledger 650.508.7752

Statement of Revenue and Expense

Page 1 of 1

% OF YEAR ELAPSED 75.0%

MONTH

CURRENT PRIOR CURRENT REVISED % REV APPROVED REVISED CURRENT % REV

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FORECAST BUDGET

(AS PROJECTED)

REVENUE

OPERATIONS:

1 Farebox Revenue 7,911,150 64,989,798 68,064,597 66,889,813 101.8% 91,679,812 91,679,812 92,715,682 74.2% 1

2 Parking Revenue 507,384 3,657,778 4,167,261 3,509,475 118.7% 4,679,300 4,679,300 5,337,086 89.1% 2

3 Shuttles 119,844 1,571,914 1,305,184 1,837,200 71.0% 2,449,600 2,449,600 2,449,600 53.3% 3

4 Rental Income 165,942 1,300,884 1,395,187 1,298,550 107.4% 1,731,400 1,731,400 1,731,400 80.6% 4

5 Other Income 257,358 457,321 2,152,557 447,750 480.7% 597,000 597,000 2,301,807 360.6% 5

6 6

7 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 8,961,679 71,977,695 77,084,785 73,982,788 104.2% 101,137,112 101,137,112 104,535,574 76.2% 7

8 8

9 CONTRIBUTIONS: 9

10 AB434 Peninsula & TA Shuttle Funding 184,268 1,398,403 1,316,957 1,402,647 93.9% 1,895,080 1,895,080 1,895,080 69.5% 10

11 Operating Grants 339,729 4,057,405 3,305,175 2,758,190 119.8% 3,677,586 3,677,586 3,677,586 89.9% 11

12 JPB Member Agencies 1,179,412 16,224,030 16,909,508 16,909,508 100.0% 20,448,014 20,448,014 20,448,014 82.7% 12

13 Use of Reserves 14,999,986 0.0% 19,234,237 19,234,237 5,157,768 0.0% 13

14 14

15 TOTAL CONTRIBUTED REVENUE 1,703,409 21,679,839 21,531,639 36,070,330 59.7% 45,254,917 45,254,917 31,178,448 47.6% 15

16 16

17 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE 10,665,087 93,657,534 98,616,424 110,053,118 89.6% 146,392,029 146,392,029 135,714,023 67.4% 17

18 18

19 19

20 EXPENSE 20

21 21

22 OPERATING EXPENSE: 22

23 Rail Operator Service 7,312,092 56,581,310 58,709,488 60,125,067 97.6% 80,166,756 80,166,756 79,243,962 73.2% 23

24 Rail Operator Service-Other - 600,000 291,138 1,518,750 19.2% 2,025,000 2,025,000 901,933 14.4% 24

25 Security Services 436,527 3,524,656 4,042,282 4,184,916 96.6% 5,582,867 5,578,399 5,468,877 72.5% 25

26 Rail Operator Extra work - - 63,070 125,000 50.5% 125,000 125,000 125,000 50.5% 26

27 Contract Operating & Maintenance 7,748,619 60,705,966 63,105,977 65,953,733 95.7% 87,899,623 87,895,155 85,739,772 71.8% 27

28 Shuttles Services 379,641 3,598,872 3,302,698 4,059,975 81.3% 5,413,300 5,413,300 5,413,300 61.0% 28

29 Fuel and Lubricants 647,012 6,113,263 6,405,898 11,660,232 54.9% 15,606,976 15,461,977 8,588,055 41.4% 29

30 Timetables and Tickets 3,480 84,936 59,768 185,275 32.3% 217,700 217,700 217,700 27.5% 30

31 Insurance 544,784 3,552,782 3,381,176 4,720,492 71.6% 6,293,990 6,293,990 5,624,332 53.7% 31

32 Facilities and Equipment Maint 278,115 1,200,492 1,511,429 1,743,452 86.7% 2,279,824 2,237,824 2,242,824 67.5% 32

33 Utilities 140,317 1,487,208 1,481,560 1,919,383 77.2% 2,559,188 2,559,188 2,559,188 57.9% 33

34 Maint & Services-Bldg & Other 126,288 888,215 938,388 1,126,451 83.3% 1,470,668 1,470,668 1,470,668 63.8% 34

35 35

36 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 9,868,256 77,631,733 80,186,893 91,368,994 87.8% 121,741,269 121,549,802 111,855,838 66.0% 36

37 37

38 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 38

39 Wages and Benefits 488,248 5,535,235 5,800,190 6,261,820 92.6% 8,790,704 8,267,667 8,214,640 70.2% 39

40 Managing Agency Admin OH Cost 338,937 4,026,405 4,252,784 4,536,594 93.7% 6,048,792 6,048,792 5,124,749 70.3% 40

41 Board of Directors 907 9,653 8,136 10,950 74.3% 14,600 14,600 14,600 55.7% 41

42 Professional Services (34,355) 2,833,368 3,051,313 4,567,358 66.8% 5,746,679 6,214,467 6,214,467 49.1% 42

43 Communications and Marketing 981 67,676 98,299 220,875 44.5% 234,800 234,800 234,800 41.9% 43

44 Other Office Expenses and Services 146,080 1,582,212 1,722,698 2,124,896 81.1% 2,533,010 2,779,727 2,772,754 62.0% 44

45 45

46 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 940,798 14,054,549 14,933,419 17,722,493 84.3% 23,368,585 23,560,052 22,576,009 63.4% 46

47 47

48 Long Term Debt Expense 108,223 961,611 977,303 961,631 101.6% 1,282,175 1,282,175 1,282,175 76.2% 48

49 49

50 GRAND TOTAL EXPENSE 10,917,277 92,647,893 96,097,616 110,053,118 87.3% 146,392,029 146,392,029 135,714,023 65.6% 50

51 51

52 NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (252,189) 1,009,641 2,518,808 - - (0) (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.

4/25/17 3:26 PM

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARDSTATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE

Fiscal Year 2017

March 2017

YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL


INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

AS OF MARCH 31, 2017

TYPE OF SECURITY MATURITY INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET

DATE RATE PRICE RATE

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

Local Agency Investment Fund (Unrestricted) * Liquid Cash 0.821% 72,404 72,404

County Pool (Restricted) ** Liquid Cash 1.024% 1,000,000 1,000,000

County Pool (Unrestricted) ** Liquid Cash 1.024% 1,238,438 1,238,438

Other (Unrestricted) Liquid Cash 0.000% 1,994,828 1,994,828

Other (Restricted) *** Liquid Cash 0.200% 24,312,748 24,312,748

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

28,618,418$ 28,618,418$

Accrued Earnings for March 2017 5,557.64$

Cumulative Earnings FY2017 45,353.87$

* The market value of Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is calculated annually and is derived from the fair

value factor as reported by LAIF for quarter ending June 30th each year.

** As of March 2017, the total cost of the Total County Pool was $4,965,784,428 and the fair market value

per San Mateo County Treasurer's Office was $4,965,838,040.

*** 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

JOSÉ CISNEROS, CHAIR

JEFF GEE, VICE CHAIR

JEANNIE BRUINS

DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS

ROSE GUILBAULT

DAVE PINE

JOÉL RAMOS

KEN YEAGER

JIM HARTNETT

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

of 5

AGENDA ITEM # 11

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: Michelle Bouchard

Chief Operating Officer, Rail

SUBJECT: KEY CALTRAIN PERFORMANCE STATISTICS MARCH 2017

In March 2017, Caltrain’s average weekday ridership (AWR) increased 3.1 percent to

58,991 from March 2016 AWR of 57,197. The total number of passengers who rode

Caltrain in March 2017 also increased 2.8 percent to 1,629,054 from 1,583,934 in

March 2016. Staff continues to monitor ticket types sold in an effort to identify potential

trends. All ticket types sold increased from March 2016, with the exception of 8-ride

and Eligible Discount 8-ride tickets (down 1.1 percent and 26.8 percent respectively).

Farebox revenue increased 4.3 percent from March 2016.

On-time performance (OTP) for March 2017 was 96.5 percent, compared to

93.2 percent OTP for March 2016. Taking into account trains arriving within 10 minutes of

the scheduled arrival time, OTP rises to 98.2 percent. In March 2017 there were

408 minutes of delay due to mechanical issues compared to 817 minutes in March 2016.

Looking at customer service statistics, there were 7.6 complaints per 100,000 passengers

in March 2017 which decreased from 8.1 in March 2016.

Shuttle ridership for March 2017 is down 4.2 percent from March 2016. For the station

shuttles, the Millbrae-Broadway shuttle averaged 195 daily riders. The Belmont-Hillsdale

shuttle averaged 38 daily riders. The weekend Tamien-San Jose shuttle averaged 49

daily riders. When the Marguerite shuttle was removed, the impact to ridership was a

decrease of 11.8 percent.

of 5

Caltrain Promotions – March 2017

Sporting Events – On March 4, the San Jose Earthquakes soccer club kicked off their

season at Avaya Stadium. Caltrain is a convenient travel option to get to the stadium

located at the Santa Clara station. Once at Santa Clara, a quick transfer to the VTA 10

Flier gets you there in 10 minutes. This summer, the pedestrian tunnel connecting the

station to Coleman Avenue will be open for fans opting to walk instead. The World Cup

qualifying games were also held at the stadium over two days featuring USA taking on

Honduras and Club America vs. Monarcas Morelia. Communications to promote the

game included new release/blog and organic social media.

Partnership – This year Caltrain partnered with Cinequest Film Festival, an annual

independent festival that celebrates the cinematic arts with Silicon Valley innovation.

In 2017 the festival was rebranded as the Cinequest Film & VR Festival and expanded

beyond downtown San Jose to Redwood City. It took place from February 28 to

March 12. This was the perfect opportunity to partner with both SamTrans and Caltrain

as a transit partner. Communications included news release/blogs, organic social

media and showcased on the go.caltrain.com website. As a way to engage and

encourage people to use transit, discounted tickets were offered through the

go.caltrain.com website and placed ad cards on train.

On-going

San Jose Sharks at SAP Center – For the month of March, the Sharks have clinched a

playoff spot again after making it to the Stanley Cup Final last year. There were eight

home games played. Caltrain carried an additional 2,393. Year-to-date additional

ridership boarding at San Jose Diridon is 13,927, which represents a 23 percent increase

compared to the same number of games last year.

Caltrain March 2016 Social Media Analytics

In March the conversation around electrification continued to drive engagement,

setting a new record for interactions (19K interactions = comments, likes, shares), and

new followers with 392. Marketing ran two Facebook campaigns around Giants Service

and the International Soccer games at Avaya. Caltrain Twitter also continued to

benefit from the electrification conversation adding almost 6,000 new followers in

February. Caltrain continued to promote events including soccer, Giants pre-season,

NCAA basketball at SAP, the Weekday Schedule Change, plus blogs, job openings,

Transit Driver Appreciation Day, Cinequest service, discount codes and other content.

of 5

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 5

Table A

Graph A

FY2016 FY2017 % Change

Total Ridership 1,583,934 1,629,054 2.8%

Average Weekday Ridership 57,197 58,991 3.1%

Total Farebox Revenue $7,583,668 $7,911,150 4.3%

On-time Performance 93.2% 96.5% 3.6%

Average Caltrain Shuttle Ridership 10,355 9,918 -4.2%

FY2016 FY2017 % Change

Total Ridership 14,161,780 13,899,118 -1.9%

Average Weekday Ridership 59,119 58,476 -1.1%

Total Farebox Revenue $64,989,798 $68,064,597 4.7%

On-time Performance 89.0% 94.3% 6.0%

Average Caltrain Shuttle Ridership 8,994 9,292 3.3%

March 2017

Year to Date

of 5

Graph B

Graph C

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ma

r-1

5

Ma

y-1

5

Ju

l-1

5

Se

p-1

5

No

v-1

5

Ja

n-1

6

Ma

r-16

Ma

y-1

6

Ju

l-1

6

Se

p-1

6

No

v-1

6

Ja

n-1

7

Ma

r-1

7

De

lay

Min

ute

s p

er

Mo

nth

MONTHLY MECHANICAL DELAYS

of 3

AGENDA ITEM # 12

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: Seamus Murphy

Chief Communications Officer

SUBJECT: CALTRAIN TRIENNIAL CUSTOMER SURVEY PRESENTATION

ACTION

This report is for information only. No board action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Caltrain Triennial Customer Survey was conducted between October 4 and

October 26. The results of this survey provide rider and trip characteristics,

demographics, satisfaction ratings, access and egress, barriers to use of Clipper and

communications information. The data collected from this study supports Title VI

analysis, development of service and fares, and promotion strategies.

This research project was managed and implemented by Corey, Canapary & Galanis,

a professional market research company. Specific steps were taken to ensure the

highest possible response rate, including the use of 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.

The weekday shifts were allocated to allow for surveying during morning and afternoon

peak periods, as well as off-peak periods. Saturday and Sunday trains were also

surveyed at various times of the day. The dates of the fieldwork were scheduled to

avoid surveying during special events that would unduly impact ridership. A total of 62

weekday routes and 10 weekend routes. Of the 62 weekday routes surveyed, 29 were

Limited trains, 19 were Local trains, and 14 were Bullet trains. For each train sampled, a

specific car was selected, and we attempted to survey every passenger in the

selected car.

of 3

5,554 responses were received which equates to a system-wide margin of error of +/-

1.30 percent (at the 95 percent confidence level). This represents a 74 percent

response rate (calculated by dividing the total number of completes by all the eligible

passengers riding on the sampled trains).

Key findings from the study include:

Ridership

More than a third of riders (34 percent) have been riding Caltrain less than one

year.

Nearly two-thirds of riders (62 percent) said they ride Caltrain to avoid traffic. This

is an increase from 57 percent who said they rode Caltrain for this reason in 2013.

Those who have ridden Caltrain less than one year cited a change in company

(31 percent), worsening traffic (29 percent), and lack of access to a car

(21 percent) as the reasons they began riding Caltrain.

Nearly half of respondents (49 percent) travel 10 miles or less to reach their

Caltrain station and more than a third (35 percent) travel 20 or more miles.

Satisfaction with Caltrain

Overall, Caltrain riders rated their experience on Caltrain 4.09 (out of 5.00), an

increase over 2013’s 4.04 (and a return to 2010 satisfaction levels).

Riders rated the effectiveness of station signs 3.90, compared to 2013 rating of

3.81.

Fare Media

Use of Clipper cash value to pay for their Caltrain trip is up (16 percent in 2016 vs.

11 percent in 2013 )

More than one third of respondents (36 percent) paid for their Caltrain trip with a

Clipper Caltrain Monthly Pass. However, this is a decrease from 2013, when

41 percent paid in this way.

The share of riders that paid for their Caltrain trip using a Go Pass rose from

14 percent in 2013 to 21 percent in 2016.

Demographics

Caltrain riders speak one of the 72 languages identified in the survey in their

homes, and while 60 percent say they are born in the United States, 40 percent

were born in one of 105 countries around the world.

Nearly all riders (96 percent) have a high school diploma, while 81 percent have

graduated college, including 38 percent who have a post graduate degree.

BUDGET IMPACT

There is no impact on the budget.

of 3

BACKGROUND

Every three years Market Research & Development Department is responsible for the

development, implementation and delivering the Caltrain customer survey. The

department works with communication, operations and planning staff to determine

requirements and ensure that the assigned on-call market research company delivers a

statistically valid survey that meets 95 percent confidence level. The methodology is

established to ensure maximum participation. Data collected through the survey is

confidential to preserve respondent identity and the results are presented in

aggregate.

Prepared by: Christiane Kwok, Manager, Market Research

& Development

650.508.7926

Project Manager: Julian Jest, Market Research Analyst 650.508.6245

of 5

AGENDA ITEM # 13

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director



SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2018 OPERATING BUDGET

ACTION

This report is submitted for informational purposes only. A presentation will be made

during the Board meeting on May 4, 2017. No Board action is requested at this time. The

Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) has reviewed and recommends approval of the

Preliminary FY2018 Operating Budget. At the June 1, 2017, meeting, the Peninsula

Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) staff will present a final FY2018 budget proposal for

Board consideration and adoption.

SIGNIFICANCE

The preliminary FY2018 Caltrain Operating Budget, as shown in Attachment A, projects

total revenue of $130.4 million, an increase of $3.2 million over FY2017 Budget, and total

expenses of $151 million, an increase of $4.6 million over the FY2017 Budget, resulting in

a projected deficit of $20.7 million. In order to mitigate the projected deficit, staff will

present an item later in the agenda to recommend that the Board set a public hearing

to consider increases to some passenger fares and parking rates. The proposed

increases total approximately $10 million in revenue, which, if approved, would reduce

the deficit to less than $11 million. The remainder of the deficit would be funded from

reserves. If fares and parking rates are not increased, the entire $20.7 million would

need to be funded from reserves. As of June 30, 2016, the agency has only

approximately $35 million in reserves. The agency currently does not have a reserve

policy in place, but staff will present a draft policy for Board consideration in June.

Below are FY2018 Key Assumptions:

Caltrain service frequency remains at 92 trains/weekday but decreases

33 percent from 36 to 28 trains on Saturday and from 32 to 28 trains on Sunday.

Member Agency contributions remain unchanged at $20.4 million. It should be

noted that contributions from the member agencies have declined from

$39.4 million in FY2010, to only $20.4 million in the FY2017 and proposed FY2018

budgets. The contribution for FY2018 is constrained by Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority’s budget challenges.

of 5

Transit America Services, Inc. (TASI) expenses increase by $3.1 million due to

increased positions and a cost-of-living adjustment, which is partially offset by a

2 percent reduction in General and Administrative costs from 8 percent to

6 percent.

Diesel fuel is budgeted at $2.68 per gallon, compared to $2.95 in FY2017. The

price for FY2018 includes increases included in Senate Bill 1. The budget as

currently presented does not assume that the agency will enter into a fuel

hedge agreement. However, discussions are underway, and if they conclude

prior to adoption of the budget, those results will be included.

Wages and Benefits increase due to eight positions that were funded for a

partial year in FY2017 and are now annualized, current estimates for the

California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) unfunded liability, and

new positions that equate to 2.35 FTEs.

The FY2018 Preliminary Budget highlights the need to secure a dedicated source of

revenue to support operations. Caltrain staff is working closely with the system’s

member agencies and other funding partners to explore a number of options for the

creation of additional revenue.

BUDGET IMPACT

This report is submitted for informational purposes only. There is no budget impact. At

the Board’s June 1, 2017 meeting, Staff will request that the Committee recommend

Board adoption of the FY2018 Operating Budget.

BACKGROUND

The preliminary FY2018 budget supports the high level of service and reliability that the

community has come to expect from Caltrain. At the same time, every effort is being

made to control costs through a variety of methods.

Fiscal Year 2018 Revenue Projections

Total revenues for FY2018 are projected to be $130.4 million. Revenues include the

following significant components:

Operating Revenue for Caltrain is projected to be $103.9 million, which includes the

following:

Farebox Revenue is projected to be $92.7 million. This projection is based on

FY2017 year-to-date annualized actuals and reflects the annualization of a fare

increase implemented in FY2016. Ridership is projected to remain unchanged in

FY2018. Ridership growth has averaged 9.2 percent over the last five years, but

has slowed down in the past year.

Parking Revenue is projected to be $5.8 million, an increase of $1.1 million. This

reflects the year-to-date annualized actuals in January, 2017 which increased

due to the 10 percent rate increase which became effective July 1, 2016.

of 5

Shuttle Income is projected to be $2.6 million, which reflects an increase in the

employer share contribution.

Rental Income is projected to be $1.7 million, a slight increase of 0.5 percent and

consistent with FY2017 income.

Other income is projected to be $1 million, which reflects an increase in Union

Pacific Railroad’s shared track maintenance for $0.35 million.

Contributed Revenue is projected to be $26.5 million, which includes the following:

JPB Member Agency contributions are projected to be unchanged from FY2017

at $20.4 million. The Boarding Formula used in the allocation is based on the

agreed upon allocation methodology of Average Weekday Boardings including

Gilroy, adjusted with passenger data collected in February, 2015. The total

contributions for each member agency are allocated in FY2018 as follows:

o San Mateo - $6.1 million (29.9 percent)

o Santa Clara - $9.0 million (44.1 percent)

o San Francisco - $5.3 million (26 percent)

Assembly Bill 434 Transportation Fund for Clean Air funds for the Caltrain

Commuter Shuttle Bus Program is projected to be $0.6 million and San Mateo

County Transportation Authority Shuttle Funding is projected to be $1.2 million.

Operating Grants are projected to include $4.3 million in State Transit Assistance

(STA), an increase of $0.6 million, or 16 percent, due to an increase in STA funds

from the Diesel Fuel Tax.

$20.7 million is proposed to be used from the reserves to balance the budget, an

increase of $1.4 million from the FY2017 revised budget. Caltrain places prior

year savings into reserves. In recent years, the operating budget has required

the use of these reserves to maintain Caltrain service levels due to reduced

contributions by JPB Member Agencies, increase operation cost from TASI and a

lack of dedicated secured funding.

Fiscal Year 2018 Expense Projections

Grand Total Expense for FY2018 is projected to be $151 million and includes the

following significant components:

Operating Expenses for Caltrain are projected at $124.6 million, an increase of

$2.9 million or 2.3 percent.

The Rail Operator Contract with TASI is projected to be $84.3 million, an increase

of $4.1 million or 5.1 percent. This reflects 3.5 percent inflation to the Basic

Service Plan, a cost of living adjustment insurance increase, and a reduction in

administrative costs.

of 5

The Rail Operator Service – Other experienced a decrease of $1 million due to

the reclassification of this expense to the Rail Operator Service line item above.

Security Services costs are projected to be $5.9 million, an increase of $0.3 million

or 5.4 percent. The increase is due to a projected 5 percent rate increase in the

contract with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.

Shuttle service is projected to be $5.6 million, an increase of $0.2 million or

3.8 percent. The increase derives from a 1.5 percent increase due to JPB

contractor hourly rates and a 2 percent increase for Employer Operated Routes,

based on current invoices plus a 2 percent expected rate increase.

Fuel costs are projected to be $14.1 million in FY2018, a decrease of $1.5 million

or 9.9 percent. The decrease is primarily due to lower budgeted per gallon costs

($2.68 versus $2.95 per gallon budgeted for FY2017), as well as slightly lower

consumption in FY2018 compared to FY2017 (4.43 million versus 4.64 million

gallons) The SB1 goes into effect on November 1, 2017 which the budgeted

price per gallon reflects an increase in diesel fuel as well as a 4 percent increase

in excise tax.

Timetables and Tickets are projected to $0.1 million a decrease of $.07 million or

33.5 percent. This decrease is due to a $0.03 million reduction in ticket order

numbers and a $0.05 million reduction for Mobile Ticketing Pilot Program due to

reclassification of this expense to Other Contract Services.

Insurance costs are projected to be $6.6 million, an increase of $0.3 million or

5 percent. The increase is primarily due to a projected 5 percent increase in

insurance premiums.

Facilities and Equipment Maintenance is projected to be $2.7 million, an

increase of $0.4 million or 18.8 percent. The increase is due to: an increase in

Contract Services by $0.3 million for the Mobile Ticketing Pilot program,

Marketing Strategy Services, Inventory Count, AT&T data line rates; increase in

Repairs and replacement of Revenue Collection machines by $0.07 million and

an increase in Clipper Operator Charges by $0.1 million.

Utilities are projected to be $2.6 million, a slight increase of $0.08 million or

3 percent. The increase is based on annualized actual expenses as of

December, 2016 plus a 3.5 percent escalator.

Services are projected to be $1.5 million, an increase of $0.04 million or

2.6 percent. This increase is mainly due to a planned marketing program to

generate increased shuttle service.

of 5

Administrative expenses are projected to be $25.1 million, an increase of $1.8 million

or 7.5 percent.

Wages and Benefits costs are projected to be $10.3 million, an increase of

$1.5 million or 17.2 percent. The increase is due to the following factors (1) the

creation of six new positions partially funded by the JPB operating budget with a

cost of $0.3 million. (See Attachment B). (2) Increase in the CalPERS unfunded

liability costs by $0.5 million and (3)Salaries and wages increase by $0.6 million.

Managing Agency Administrative Overhead Cost is projected to be $6.4 million

for FY2018, an increase of $0.3 million or 5 percent.

Professional Services costs are projected to be $5.3 million, a decrease of

$0.5 million or 8.6 percent. The decrease derives from a reduction in the use of

Professional Services in the Finance division by $0.4 million. This resulted from the

conversion of consulting expenses to FTEs.

Other Expenses and Services are projected to be $3 million, an increase of

$0.4 million or 18.3 percent. This increase is primarily due to recruiting fees for

additional employees in the Rail Division; an increase in rental costs at

Menlo Park Maintenance of Way Facility; and an increase in bank fees due to

growth in credit card sales and fees.

While the Preliminary FY2018 Operating Budget is balanced through the use of reserves,

this is not a strategy that can sustain the agency. Caltrain is exploring strategies that will

enhance and maximize revenues, and will continue to work with partner agencies and

other stakeholders to identify and secure a permanent, dedicated funding source for

future operations.

Prepared By: Ed Santacruz, Senior Budget Analyst

Sam Le, Manager, Budgets

650.508.6345

650.508.6426

ATTACHMENT A

INC(DEC) % INC(DEC)

FY2016 FY2017 FY2017 FY2018 FY18 PRELIMINARY FY17 REVISED

ACTUAL BUDGET FORECAST PRELIMINARY to FY17 BUDGET to FY18 PRELIMINARY

A B C D E = D-B F = E/B

REVENUE

OPERATIONS:

1 Farebox Revenue 86,959,370 91,679,812 92,715,682 92,715,682 1,035,870 1.1% 1

2 Parking Revenue 5,048,901 4,679,300 5,337,086 5,785,000 1,105,700 23.6% 2

3 Shuttles 2,177,344 2,449,600 2,449,600 2,624,850 175,250 7.2% 3

4 Rental Income 1,780,826 1,731,400 1,731,400 1,740,200 8,800 0.5% 4

5 Other Income 722,862 597,000 2,301,807 993,345 396,345 66.4% 5

6 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 96,689,303 101,137,112 104,535,575 103,859,077 2,721,965 2.7% 6

7 7

8 CONTRIBUTIONS: 8

9 AB434 & TA Shuttle Funding 1,674,167 1,895,080 1,895,080 1,796,300 (98,780) -5.2% 9

10 Operating Grants 4,534,023 3,677,586 3,677,586 4,265,650 588,064 16.0% 10

11 JPB Member Agencies 19,727,449 20,448,014 20,448,014 20,448,014 0 0.0% 11

13 TOTAL CONTRIBUTED REVENUE 25,935,639 26,020,680 26,020,680 26,509,964 489,284 1.9% 13

14 14

15 GRAND TOTAL REVENUE 122,624,942 127,157,792 130,556,255 130,369,041 3,211,249 2.5% 15

16 16

17 EXPENSE 17

18 18

19 OPERATING EXPENSE: 19

20 Rail Operator Service 71,667,785 80,166,756 79,243,962 84,293,672 4,126,916 5.1% 20

21 Rail Operator Service-Other 1,858,774 2,025,000 901,933 1,000,000 (1,025,000) -50.6% 21

22 Security Services 5,093,060 5,582,867 5,468,877 5,882,760 299,893 5.4% 22

23 Rail Operator Extra work 197,510 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 0.0% 23

24 Shuttle Service 4,907,057 5,413,300 5,413,300 5,619,300 206,000 3.8% 24

25 Fuel and Lubricants 8,299,227 15,606,976 8,588,055 14,068,164 (1,538,812) -9.9% 25

26 Timetables and Tickets 108,311 217,700 217,700 144,700 (73,000) -33.5% 26

27 Insurance 35,066 6,293,990 5,624,332 6,608,691 314,701 5.0% 27

28 Facilities and Equipment Maint 1,884,175 2,279,824 2,242,824 2,708,611 428,787 18.8% 28

29 Utilities 2,002,821 2,559,188 2,559,188 2,637,178 77,990 3.0% 29

30 Services 1,308,718 1,470,668 1,470,668 1,509,598 38,930 2.6% 30

31 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 97,362,505 121,741,269 111,855,839 124,597,674 2,856,405 2.3% 31

32 32

33 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 33

34 Wages and Benefits 7,427,656 8,790,704 8,214,640 10,303,789 1,513,085 17.2% 34

35 Managing Agency Admin OH Cost 5,514,288 6,048,792 5,124,749 6,351,231 302,439 5.0% 35

36 Board of Directors 13,631 14,600 14,600 14,600 0 0.0% 36

37 Professional Services 5,096,083 5,746,679 6,214,467 5,254,009 (492,670) -8.6% 37

38 Communications and Marketing 106,896 234,800 234,800 211,500 (23,300) -9.9% 38

39 Other Office Expense and Services 2,341,215 2,533,010 2,772,754 2,995,915 462,905 18.3% 39

40 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 20,499,770 23,368,585 22,576,010 25,131,044 1,762,459 7.5% 40

41 41

42 Long-term Debt Expense 1,282,167 1,282,175 1,282,175 1,298,675 16,500 1.3% 42

43 43

44 GRAND TOTAL EXPENSE 119,144,442 146,392,029 135,714,024 151,027,393 4,635,363 3.2% 44

45 45

46 PROJECTED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 3,480,500 (19,234,237) (5,157,769) (20,658,352) 46

Unrestricted funds Beginning Balance 35,149,845 29,992,076

Projected surplus/(use) of reserves - (5,157,769) (20,658,352)

Unrestricted funds Ending Balance 35,149,845 29,992,076 9,333,725


STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE

PRELIMINARY BUDGET

FY2018

Attachment B

New Position Requests Justification

Budget Labor

Distribution

Senior Engineer, Network Management* Additional support required to meet upcoming operational needs. 50% JPB Operating, 50% JPB Capital

Deputy Chief, Rail Operations Incremental upgrade to an existing FTE 50% JPB Operating, 50% JPB Capital

Senior Planner*** Increasing support needed for forecasted workloads to support service

planning.

40% JPB Operating, 60% JPB Capital

Market Development Contract Administrator* To support the management of marketing contracts; i.e. advertising,

mobile ticketing and coordinating the advertising program.

50% JPB Operating, 50% Samtrans Operating

Associate Contract Officer* To support increased workload for procurements under $150K in

accordance with new AB2030 procurement thresholds.

20% JPB Operating, 20% JPB Capital, 50% Samtrans, 10% San Mateo County Transit Authority

ADA Coordinator* Increase support to address ADA compliance needs. 50% JPB Operating, 50% Samtrans Operating

* With the exception of the Senior Engineer, Deputy Chief and the Senior Planner, the other new FTEs allocate a portion of their time to Samtrans and/or the

San Mateo County Transportaion Authority

Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board

New FTE requests in FY18 Budget

of 3

AGENDA ITEM # 14

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director



SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET

ACTION

This report is submitted for informational purposes only. No Board action is required.

Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) has reviewed the Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2018

Capital Budget and the staff will bring it back to the SCC to recommend approval

before the budget is balanced in June.

SIGNIFICANCE

Attachment A shows the Preliminary FY2018 Capital Budget, which totals $56.3 million in

revenues and $59.5 million in expenses. The current deficit totals $3.2 million. However,

staff will analyze revenues and expenses and present a balanced capital budget at

the June Board Meeting. The capital budget is financially constrained, based on

available funding from Federal, State, Local and member agency contributions,

including Senate Bill 1 (SB1). The budget is slightly short of meeting the JPB Board’s

December 2016 commitment to fund state of good repair needs (Resolution No.

2016-67) and is aligned with the Caltrain Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and the

upcoming Business Plan.

Attachment A shows the Preliminary FY2018 Capital Budget, as well as a financially

unconstrained scenario. The unconstrained scenario reflects staff’s assessment of

projects that are required to maximize the efficiency and quality of the Caltrain system.

However, since resources are not available to fully fund this plan, staff prioritized the

most critical projects to develop the Preliminary Budget.

of 3

BUDGET IMPACT

Of the $56.3 million on Preliminary FY2018 Capital Budget, the total contribution from the

three member agencies is $15 million, or $5 each. Federal, State and other fund sources

make up the amount of $41.3 million, which is $3.2 million less than the revenue needed

to fully fund the Preliminary FY2018 Capital Budget.

BACKGROUND

The capital budget is developed on an annual basis. A comprehensive call for projects

was issued as part of the capital planning process. Capital project submittals were

reviewed and prioritized for consistency with the SRTP, Full Funding Grant Agreement

FGA request and policy objectives. In addition, the program was developed to

leverage as much external funding and grants as possible.

Expenses:

The FY2018 Capital Budget is broken down into the following major categories:

State of Good Repair: $30.9 million. Projects funded in this category will:

Continue to rehabilitate components of the current fleet of passenger

cars and locomotives to ensure that vehicles will operate reliably up to the

end of their duty cycles

Fund the Los Gatos Creek Bridge Replacement and Tunnel and Track

Drainage Rehabilitation

Replace, maintain and upgrade signal and communication equipment

Legal Mandates: $1.2 million.

The Preliminary Budget includes funding for a storm water program and

for a transit asset management project.

Operational Improvements: $25.2 million. Some of the highlights in this category

include:

Improvements at the South San Francisco Station ($21.6 million)

Continued installation of safety fencing along the right-of-way

Providing greater operational flexibility for a new control point at

Brittan Avenue.

Planning Studies/Contingency: $2.2 million. This category includes:

Contingency funding for rail and engineering projects,

Capital project development and management, and

An update to the grade crossing hazard analysis

of 3

Revenues:

Revenues to fund the Preliminary Capital Budget come from several sources. Federal

funding totaling $19 million is available primarily for:

Systemwide Track Rehabilitation - rehabilitation and replacement of rail and

related civil structures on Caltrain Corridor, as well as ongoing state of good

repair track work, bridges, and structures along the Caltrain right-of-way

Communication System/Signal Rehabilitation – rehabilitation and replacement

of the existing signal systems and communication/radio systems.

Revenue Vehicle Rehabilitation – rehabilitation on overhauls and

repairs/replacement to key components of the Caltrain rolling stock, to maintain

it in a state of good repair and to extend the useful life of the fleet.

Los Gatos Creek Bridge.

State funding from the recently-approved Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) will be available in FY2018,

and based on the preliminary projection, Caltrain may potentially receive up to

$3.9 million. This new source of revenue is critical to the Caltrain FY2018 budget but we

are slightly short by $3.2 million to a balanced budget.

To meet the requirement of the Core Capacity Plan for the Peninsula Corridor

Electrification Project, the partner agencies each committed to fund approximately

$7.5 million annually to Caltrain’s capital program. However, as a result of its own

budget shortfall, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is unable to commit more

than $5 million to the Caltrain capital program in FY2018 and FY2019, effectively

capping the other partners’ contributions as well.

Prepared By: Sam Le, Manager, Budgets 650.508.6426

Ladi Millard, Director, Budgets & Financial Analysis 650.508.7755

FY2018 CAPITAL PRELIMINARY BUDGET ATTACHMENT A

i. SOGR

Right of Way / Signal & Communications

1 Signal SOGR FY18 325,000 650,000

2 Communications SOGR FY18 500,000 1,000,000

3 Systemwide Track SOGR FY18 3,000,000 6,200,000

4 Control Point Brittain (Track SOGR Component) 500,000 500,000

5 Los Gatos Creek Bridge 4,999,588 4,999,588

6 Tunnel 1 & 4 Track and Drainage Rehabilitation 8,000,000 8,000,000

7 Marin & Napolean Street Bridge Replacement - 1,100,000

8 Rail Grinding Year 2 - 710,000

17,324,588 23,159,588

Rolling Stock

9 MP36 Mid-Life Overhauls 6,695,614 13,391,227

10 MP36 SOGR 189,360 189,360

11 F40 In-Frame Overhauls 2,100,000 2,100,000

12 F40 SOGR 660,733 660,733

13 Bombardier Cars SOGR 567,625 567,625

14 Gallery Cars SOGR 1,782,343 1,782,343

15 Gallery Overhauls 6,503,928

16 Bombardier Overhauls 8,314,412

17 Other MOE (includes CEMOF, minor parts and activities) 830,690 1,667,382

12,826,365 35,177,010

Station & Intermodal Access

18 Bayshore Station Painting Project - 500,000

19 Station Enchancements and Renovation - 330,000

20 San Francisco Station Building Coorosion Study & Rehab - 350,000

21 Diridon Station Repairs - 870,000

22 Stations FY18 SOGR 250,000 500,000

23 Ticket Vending Machine Rehab Program 495,000 1,500,000

745,000 4,050,000

All SOGR Subtotal 30,895,953 62,386,598

ii. LEGAL MANDATES AND REQUIRED ENHANCEMENTS

24 PTC Integration (Sunnyvale and CP Brittain) 500,000 500,000

25 Transit Asset Management (TAM) 420,000 840,000

26 MS4 Stormwater Program - Year Five 300,000 300,000

1,220,000 1,640,000

iii. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS/ENHANCEMENTS

27 Fiber Connectivity Implementation 1,907,000

28 Wireless Communications for PCEP 800,000

29 Caltrain Bike Parking Management Plan 500,000

30 Grade Crossing Improvement FY17 408,867 408,867

31 New Control Point Brittan 2,250,000 2,250,000

32 Right of Way Fencing Project 908,900 908,900

33 South San Francisco Station Improvement Project 21,636,000 21,636,000

25,203,767 28,410,767

iv. PLANNING/STUDIES

34 Capital Project Development 500,000 2,230,000

35 Capital Program Management 500,000 500,000

36 Capital Contingency Funds - Engineering 330,000 330,000

37 Capital Contingency Funds - Rail 660,000 660,000

38 2017 Engineering Standards Update 665,000

39 Caltrain Design Criteria Sustainability Update 100,000

40 Caltrain Grade Crossing Hazard Analysis Update 200,000 300,000

2,190,000 4,785,000

Grand Total Project Cost 59,509,720 97,222,365

Total Revenue 56,260,469 56,260,469

Revenue Source

FUNDED WITH ANTICIPATED FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDS 14,271,996 14,271,996

FUNDED THROUGH SEPARATE PLAN / OTHER SOURCES 23,044,900 23,044,900

Senate Bill 1 (SB1) 3,943,573 3,943,573

TOTAL PARTNER CONTRIBUTION ($5M/partner) 15,000,000 15,000,000

DEFICIT 3,249,251 40,961,896

Unconstrained Preliminary

FY18 Budget Item

#

PROJECT TITLE / Description

1 | 1

AGENDA ITEM # 15

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: Kathleen Kelly Michelle Bouchard

Interim Chief Financial Officer Chief Operating Officer, Rail

Seamus Murphy


SUBJECT: CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED CODIFIED TARIFF CHANGES

ACTION

Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) recommends the Board schedule a public hearing at its

July 6, 2017 Board meeting to consider possible changes to its Codified Tariff. The Board

would be asked to consider approving the proposed changes at its August meeting,

with implementation for most changes proposed for October 2017.

SIGNIFICANCE

Setting the public hearing will allow staff to schedule community meetings in the three

counties to solicit input from customers and the general public on the proposed

changes. Attachment A shows preliminary projections of revenue opportunities by ticket

type, based on the proposed increases.

BUDGET IMPACT

Holding a public hearing will not impact the budget. If the proposed fare and parking

increases are approved as recommended in Attachment A, it would add approximately

$9.7 million in new revenue to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Caltrain Operating Budget,

reducing the projected deficit of $20.7 million to $11 million. In future years the proposed

package will net $15.7 million annually. First year revenue is lower because

implementation will occur after the start of the fiscal year.

BACKGROUND

The Preliminary Caltrain FY2018 Operating Budget projects that expenses will exceed

available revenues by more than $20 million, based in large part on financial

contributions by the three funding partners that are significantly lower than a few years

ago. The agency has a small financial Reserve that is expected to decrease to

approximately $30 million by the end of FY2017. Although the agency does not

currently have a Reserve Policy, staff is developing one for Board consideration at its

June meeting. It is clear that Caltrain cannot sustain an imbalance in revenues and

expenses of this magnitude. Without additional revenues, the system cannot even

continue to provide current service levels over the next two years.

Caltrain fares were increased most recently in February 2016, with an increase in the

base fare of $0.50. In addition, there was also a daily parking increase of $0.50, from $5

to $5.50 and a monthly parking increase of $5, from $50 to $55.00, effective July 1, 2016.

The Short-Range Transit Plan contemplates incremental fare increases every two years,

with the next one scheduled for February 2018. Based on the projected deficit for

FY2018, SCC recommends that the Board consider: 1) accelerating the implementation

date for fare changes; 2) increasing parking revenues; and, 3) increasing prices in

some fare categories that have not been changed in recent years and/or are

generally recognized as inequitable compared to other fare categories. A

comprehensive fare study is underway and will be used to inform future fare structure

and price changes.

Proposed changes to be considered at the public hearing include:

- Increasing Go-Pass fares by 50 percent - Pricing monthly passes at the equivalent of 15 days per month, rather than 13 per

days per month

- Eliminating the discounted 8-Ride ticket

- Pricing monthly parking fees at the equivalent of 15 days/month, rather than 10

days per month

- Increasing the Zone fare by $0.25

- Implementing a pilot program to provide discounts for weekend and evening

riders

Changes to the Go-Pass and the proposed off-peak discount cannot be implemented

until January 2018. All of the other fare changes are proposed for implementation on

October 1, 2017, to maximize the revenue potential.

Prepared By: Ryan Hinchman, Manager, Financial Planning & Analysis 650.508.7733

JPB FY18‐19 Incremental Revenue Opportunities

Ticket Type ChangeImplementation

DateRevenue Opportunity

FY18Revenue Opportunity

FY19Parking Revenue 10 to 15 day equivalent 10/1/2017 1,086,603 1,452,784 Go Pass 50% Increase 1/1/2018 3,171,383 6,395,331 Month Pass 13 to 15 day equivalent 10/1/2017 2,502,677 3,171,997 8 Ride Remove ticket type 10/1/2017 238,214 271,926 Zone Increase $0.25 increase 10/1/2017 2,924,271 3,909,740 *Month Pass, 8 Ride, and zone net combine pass changes 10/1/2017 105,348 425,978 *Flex Fare 10/1/2017 (554,977) (739,969)Total 9,473,518 14,887,786

‐ Notes*Month Pass, 8 Ride, and Zone combine changes shows the incremental revenue increase if implemented together. The revenue increase is due to the zone increase on the one‐way fare, which causes an additional increase on the month pass.*Flex fare is a proposed program to offer reduced fares for weekend and off‐peak week riders.

of 2

13446258.2

AGENDA ITEM # 16

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: Michelle Bouchard Kathleen Kelly

Chief Operating Officer Interim Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR RAIL OPERATIONS CONTROL SYSTEM

MODIFICATION FOR CALTRAIN

ACTION

Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) recommends the Board:

1. Approve an amendment to the contract with ARINC, Inc. for the Rail Operations

Control System (ROCS) Modification for Caltrain to increase the contract by

$1million for current and projected contract expenditures.

2. Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to execute the amendment in a

form approved by legal counsel.

SIGNIFICANCE

Approval of the above actions will provide additional funding to the ROCS Modification

contract until Caltrain Communication Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train

Control (CBOSS PTC) Revenue Service Demonstration (RSD) is completed, and will

support additional necessary modifications to the ROCS.

The Caltrain Central Train Control system, known as the ROCS, is a train dispatch system

based on proprietary software and hardware provided and developed by ARINC, Inc.

The dispatch system is the foundation upon which the next level of enhanced train

control is managed.

In December 2013, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-53, a contract was awarded to

ARINC, Inc. for further enhancements and modifications to ROCS to modify the system

to properly interface with CBOSS PTC.

In order to support the CBOSS PTC System in accordance with Caltrain PTC contract

No. 10-PCJPB-T-021, the modification of the existing ROCS was implemented and

factory accepted in June 2014. The modification of ROCS was necessary for the PTC

System implementation and had to be delivered by Caltrain within a timeframe

defined to meet the requirements of the Caltrain CBOSS PTC project schedule. Due to

of 2

13446258.2

delays in the completion of the CBOSS PTC project, system integration testing support

from ARINC, Inc. needs to be extended until CBOSS PTC RSD is completed. CBOSS PTC

RSD is targeted for completion by December 2018.

BUDGET IMPACT

Funding for the requested increase in the ARINC, Inc. ROCS contract is part of the

current CBOSS PTC project budget and CBOSS PTC Fiscal Year 2018 budget request.

BACKGROUND

Currently, the ROCS operates as a train dispatch system relying on signal switches and

train schedules to control the rail traffic. The CBOSS PTC system will track the location

and speed of a train more accurately than is possible with ROCS, provide movement

authorities to trains based on this precise information, and enforce speeds and limits of

authority, as necessary. The modifications to ROCS allow the system to interface with

the PTC Back Office Server (BOS) to exchange Mandatory Directive data and the PTC

Schedule Server to exchange schedule-related data and issue train commands.

ARINC, Inc. completed office segment testing in the Central Control Facility and Back-

up Central Control Facility in September of 2016. However, the support of system

integration testing that ARINC, Inc. provides needs to be extended due to delay of the

CBOSS PTC project.

In addition, further ROCS modifications include:

1. an upcoming upgrade of the Back Office Server which is the CBOSS PTC office

subsystem that ROCS is interfacing with, in order to achieve Interoperability on

the Caltrain corridor; and

2. essential modifications due to the addition of a new control point, CP Britten.

Staff feels it is critical to amend the ROCS Modification contract to provide continued

and vital support of the CBOSS PTC system integration testing and acceptance, and to

enable completion of CBOSS PTC RSD.

The original ROCS Modification contract was awarded to ARINC, Inc. in the amount of

$1,993,468 for a term contingent upon the completion of the CBOSS PTC RSD. This

amendment will increase the contract amount by $1 million for a total contract value

of $2,993,468.

Prepared by: Michelle Bouchard, Chief Operating Officer, Rail 650.508.6420

of 2

13446259.2

RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH ARINC, INC. FOR

THE PROVISION OF ENHANCEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE RAIL

OPERATIONS CONTROL SYSTEM TO INCREASE THE TOTAL

CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $1 MILLION

WHEREAS, in December 2013, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-53, the Board of

Directors (Board) of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) awarded a

contract to ARINC, Inc. for the provision of further enhancements and modifications to

the Rail Operations Control System (ROCS) to ensure that ROCS properly interfaces with

Caltrain Communication Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control (CBOSS

PTC); and

WHEREAS, the modification of the existing ROCS was necessary for the CBOSS

PTC system implementation and had to be delivered by Caltrain within a timeframe

defined to meet the requirements of the Caltrain CBOSS PTC project schedule; and

WHEREAS, due to delays in the completion of the CBOSS PTC project, system

integration testing support from ARINC, Inc. needs to be extended until CBOSS PTC

Revenue Service Demonstration (RSD) is completed, which completion is targeted for

December 2018; and

WHEREAS, staff has determined that ARINC, Inc’s performance has been

satisfactory and in conformance with the terms and requirements of the contract; and

WHEREAS, staff has determined that it is in the best interest of the JPB to increase

the estimated total contract amount by $1 million, for a term contingent upon the

completion of the CBOSS PTC RSD; and

of 2

13446259.2

WHEREAS, Staff Coordinating Council recommends that the Board approve an

amendment to the ARINC, Inc. contract for the ROCS Modification to increase the

contract by $1 million, and authorize the Executive Director or his designee to execute

the amendment in a form approved by legal counsel.

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

Corridor Joint Powers Board authorizes amendment of the ROCS Modification contract

with ARINC, Inc. to increase the estimated total contract amount by $1 million from

$1,993,468 to $2,993,468 for a term contingent upon the completion of the CBOSS PTC

RSD; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the Executive Director or his

designee to execute the amendment in a form approved by legal counsel.

Regularly passed and adopted this day 4th of May, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

__________________________________________

Chair, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

ATTEST:

____________________________

JPB Secretary

of 2

13441866.1

AGENDA ITEM # 17

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: Kathleen Kelly Michelle Bouchard

Interim Chief Financial Officer Chief Operating Officer, Rail

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONTRACTS FOR PROVISION OF ON-CALL GENERAL

ENGINEERING CONSULTANT DESIGN SERVICES

ACTION

Staff Coordinating Council recommends the Board:

1. Approve an amendment to the contract for provision of on-call general

engineering consultant (GEC) design services for bridges with HDR Engineering,

Inc. (HDR) to increase the contract total amount by $6.6 million from

$15.95 million to $22.55 million.

2. Approve an amendment to the contract for provision of on-call GEC design

services for structures and other design services with Rail Surveyors and Engineers,

Inc. (RSE) to increase the contract total amount by $1.65 million from

$11.55 million to $13.2 million.

3. Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to execute each amendment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Approval of amendments to the contracts held by HDR and RSE (Agreements) will

ensure uninterrupted provision of preliminary design, final design, design support during

construction, and staff support services (On-Call GEC Design Services) for several

projects within the JPB capital program, such as:

25th Avenue Grade Separation,

South San Francisco Station Improvements,

Los Gatos Creek Bridge Replacement,

Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study,

CBOSS/Positive Train Control, and

Caltrain Asset Management System (CTAMS)

BUDGET IMPACT

On-Call GEC Design Services to be provided under the Agreements will be funded from

previously adopted capital budgets and those approved in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018.

of 2

13441866.1

Funds are provided by JPB operating revenues and Federal, State, regional, local and

private sources.

BACKGROUND

Board Resolution No. 2013-18 authorized the award of two, three-year contracts with an

aggregate contract total amount of $15 million, which was to be shared as a pool of

funds between HDR for on-call design services for bridges and RSE for on-call design

services for structures and other design services. This resolution also authorized two, one-

year option terms to each contract for an aggregate total of $10 million. On

December 8, 2016, the option terms ($10 million) and contract contingency

($2.5 million) were exercised. This action increased the aggregate contract total

amount by $12.5 million from $15 million to $27.5 million, and extended the contract

term from January 2017 to January 2019.

HDR and RSE perform design services under these contracts on a project and as-

needed basis via Work Directives (WDs) that contain a defined scope of services,

detailed tasks and a separate schedule and budget.

To date, an aggregate total of $22.95 million in WDs has been issued under the subject

contracts and $12.8 million in additional WDs is now anticipated. An increase of

$8.25 million from $27.5 million to $35.75 million in the aggregate contract total amount

is needed to accommodate planned work, such as the South San Francisco Station

Improvements, and unanticipated work, such as the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor

Study.

Increasing the contract total will not obligate the JPB to purchase any specific level of

services from HDR and RSE, as WDs are issued on a project and as-needed basis.

HDR and RSE’s performance to date has been satisfactory and in accordance with the

requirements of the contract.

Contract Officer: Angela K. Gardner 650.508.7788

Project Manager: Danielle Stewart, Director, Rail Contracts and

Budget

650.508.7975

of 2

13441869.1

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF CONTRACTS WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. AND

RAIL SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PROVISION OF ON-CALL GENERAL

ENGINEERING CONSULTANT DESIGN SERVICES TO INCREASE THE

CONTRACTS BY AN AGGREGATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,250,000

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-18, the Board of Directors (Board) of

the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) awarded on-call general engineering

consultant (GEC) design services contracts (Agreements) to HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR)

of Walnut Creek, California in the "bridges" design category and to Rail Surveyors &

Engineers, Inc. (RSE) of Belmont, California in the "other structures and other design

services" category; and

WHEREAS, staff proposes to increase the total HDR and RSE contract amounts to

meet current and projected JPB needs for on-call GEC design services in support of

projects included in the JPB capital program; and

WHEREAS, Staff Coordinating Council recommends, and the Executive Director

concurs, that the Board authorize amendments to the Agreements to increase the

aggregate contract total amount by $8,250,000 from $27.5 million to $35,750,000 million,

consisting of an increase of $6.6 million to the HDR Agreement and $1.65 million to the

RSE Agreement, for authorized tasks assigned to the two firms, as needs arise in each

design category.

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

Corridor Joint Powers Board authorizes an amendment to the on-call GEC design

services agreements with HDR Engineering Inc. of Walnut Creek, California and with Rail

of 2

13441869.1

Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. of Belmont, California, to increase the aggregate contract

total amount by $8,250,000 from $27.5 million to $35,750,000, consisting of an increase of

$6.6 million to the HDR Agreement and $1.65 million to the RSE Agreement, for

authorized tasks assigned to the two firms; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the Executive Director, or his

designee, to execute the amendments in a form approved by legal counsel.

Regularly passed and adopted this 4th day of May, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

____________________________________________


ATTEST:

_______________________________

JPB Secretary

of 4

13442531.1

AGENDA ITEM # 18

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director



SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR ON-CALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

ACTION

Staff Coordinating Council (SCC) recommends that the Board:

1. Award 12 on-call, no compensation guarantee, contracts for Information

Technology (IT) Consulting and Support Services, each for a three-year base

term, in an aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $11.1 million, with up to two

additional, one-year option terms, to the following firms:

1. Auriga Corporation

2. Elegant Enterprise-Wide

Solutions, Inc.

3. eXcell, Inc.

4. Four Nines Technologies

5. HNTB Corporation

6. Informatix, Inc.

7. Lamoreaux Associates

8. MSys, Inc.

9. Sierra-Cedar, Inc.

10. The Soaring Group, Inc.

11. Strategic Solutions Group LLC

12. Varsun eTechnologies Group, Inc.

2. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to execute a contract with

each of the 12 firms listed above that is substantially consistent with the terms

and conditions set forth in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for IT Consulting and

Support Services, and in a form approved by legal counsel.

3. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to exercise up to two one-

year option terms on any or all of the contracts, for an aggregate not-to-

exceed amount of $3.7 million for each year, if the Executive Director, or his

designee, determines it is in the best interest of the Peninsula Corridor Joint

Powers Board (JPB) to do so.

of 4

13442531.1

SIGNIFICANCE

The recommended contract awards will provide the JPB with consultants who possess

the necessary expertise to work on an as-needed project basis, or staff augmentation

basis, within the following four broad categories of work, which are listed with the firms

that submitted proposals in response to the RFP and were determined to be qualified to

provide services in each category:

General Programming Services/Desktop User Technical Support: This category

will provide Software development and implementation support for the JPB as

related to applications created/owned by the JPB and other applications, which

the JPB can modify or enhance to meet the JPB’s evolving needs

o Auriga Corporation

o Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions, Inc.

o eXcell, Inc.

o Four Nines Technologies

o MSys, Inc.

o Sierra-Cedar, Inc.

o Strategic Solutions Group LLC

o Varsun eTechnologies Group, Inc.

IT Infrastructure Support: This category will provide ongoing support and

implementation of existing and future JPB resources as related to the JPB’s

administrative technology infrastructure, which primarily supports personnel.



o eXcell, Inc.

o MSys, Inc.

Transit Technology Support: This category will provide ongoing support and

implementation of existing and future JPB resources as related to the JPB’s

operational technology infrastructure, which supports Rail operations.



o Four Nines Technologies

o Lamoreaux Associates

PeopleSoft Support: This category will provide analytical, developmental, and

implementation support for the JPB as related to financial applications, which

the JPB can modify or enhance to meet the JPB’s evolving needs.


o eXcell, Inc.

o HNTB Corporation

o Informatix, Inc.

o Sierra-Cedar, Inc.

o The Soaring Group, Inc.

o Varsun eTechnologies Group, Inc.

of 4

13442531.1

The scope of work in the RFP defines the specific technology and consulting support

services for each of the four categories. As needed, the JPB will issue a Work Directive

Proposal Request for services to be provided. Consultants will be responsible for

preparing and submitting Work Directive Proposals. The JPB may accept a consultant’s

proposal or negotiate with the selected consultant, as appropriate. Once accepted by

the JPB, a Work Directive will be issued. Award of the contracts will not obligate the JPB

to purchase any level of effort from any of the firms as the Work Directives will be issued

on a project-by-project basis, considering factors such as work priorities, specialized

expertise, cost, and availability of funding.

BUDGET IMPACT

Work directives issued under these contracts will contain a defined scope of services,

and a separate schedule and budget. Funds will be provided in approved capital or

operating budgets.

BACKGROUND

An RFP was issued and advertised in a local newspaper and on the Public Purchase

website. The RFP was issued as a joint procurement with the San Mateo County Transit

District. The JPB received 23 proposals, 11 of which met the requirements to receive a

Small Business Enterprise (SBE) preference. An Evaluation Committee (Committee)

composed of qualified JPB staff reviewed and scored the proposals in accordance

with the following weighted criteria:

Approach to Scope of Services 25%

Qualifications and Experience of Management Team

and Key Personnel 50%

Labor Category Rates 20%

Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Preference 5%

Twelve firms (including seven that qualified for the SBE preference) achieved a score

within the competitive range. Upon completion of the review of references, financial

review, and final scoring of proposals, it was determined that all 12 firms have the

requisite depth of experience and have the required qualifications to successfully

perform the desired services.

The Committee reviewed the rates and other cost elements submitted by the 12 firms in

the competitive range and found that the proposed rates compared favorably to

those in existing IT consultant support services contracts. Each firm is fully capable of

providing the specified services at a fair and reasonable price. Staff has determined

that it would be in the best interest of the JPB to award contracts to all 12 firms, in order

to have a qualified bench of firms that can provide the desired expertise in the four

categories listed above, as needs arise.

of 4

13442531.1

The previous on-call contracts were awarded in 2011 to 10 firms for an aggregate not-

to-exceed amount of $14,166,166 for a five-year term ending August 2016.

Sr. Contract Officer: Alan Chan 650.508.6256

Project Manager: Carl Cubba, Interim Director, Information 650.622.7954

Technology & Telecommunications

of 3

13442466.1

RESOLUTION NO. 2017 –


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AWARDING TWELVE ON-CALL CONTRACTS

FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR A THREE-YEAR

BASE TERM AT AN AGGREGATE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $11.1 MILLION

WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) has solicited

competitive proposals to provide On-Call Information Technology (IT) Consulting and

Support Services; and

WHEREAS, in response to the JPB’s Request for Proposal (RFP), 23 firms submitted

proposals; and

WHEREAS, an Evaluation Committee (Committee) composed of qualified JPB

staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals in accordance with the criteria set forth in

the RFP; and

WHEREAS, the Committee determined that 12 firms scored within the competitive

range; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of reference checks and final scoring of proposals, it

was determined that all 12 firms in the competitive range have the requisite depth of

experience and have the required qualifications to successfully perform the desired

services, and will perform such services at fair and reasonable prices; and

WHEREAS, the 12 firms will provide the JPB with the necessary expertise on an as-

needed project basis or staff augmentation basis for the following four broad

categories of work:

of 3

13442466.1

General Programming Services/Desktop User Technical Support

IT Infrastructure Support

Transit Technology Support

PeopleSoft Support; and

WHEREAS, staff has determined that it would be in the best interest of the JPB to

award contracts to all of the following 12 firms, in order to have a qualified bench of

firms that can provide the desired expertise in the four categories listed above, as

needs arise:

1. Auriga Corporation

2. Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions, Inc.

3. eXcell, Inc.

4. Four Nines Technologies

5. HNTB Corporation

6. Informatix, Inc.

7. Lamoreaux Associates

8. MSys, Inc.

9. Sierra-Cedar, Inc.

10. The Soaring Group, Inc.

11. Strategic Solutions Group LLC

12. Varsun eTechnologies Group, Inc.

WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report lists these firms by the categories of

work each may be required to provide; and

WHEREAS, the Executive Director recommends, and Staff Coordinating Council

concurs, that the JPB award a contract to each of the 12 firms identified above, whose

proposals meet all of the RFP requirements for furnishing On-Call IT Consulting and

Support Services, with the understanding that each contract will identify the

category(ies) of services that each consultant may be required to provide; and

WHEREAS, in awarding the contracts, the JPB is under no obligation to purchase

any level of effort from any of the firms, as individual work directives will be issued on a

project-by-project basis, considering factors such as work priorities, specialized

expertise, cost and availability of funding.

of 3

13442466.1

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors (Board) of the

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board awards contracts with each of the 12 firms

identified above for IT Consulting and Support Services for a three-year base term for an

aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $11.1 million, and up to two, one-year option

terms for an aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $3.7 million for each year; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the Executive Director, or his

designee, to execute contracts with the 12 firms identified above that are substantially

consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP, and in a form approved by

legal counsel; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the Executive Director to

exercise up to two, one-year option terms under the contracts with each of the 12 firms,

subject to the compensation limits set forth above, if the Executive Director, or his

designee, determines it is in the best interest of the JPB to do so.

Regularly passed and adopted this 4th day of May, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


ATTEST:

JPB Secretary

of 2

13441306.1

AGENDA ITEM # 19

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: April Chan Kathleen Kelly

Chief Officer, Planning, Grants and

Transportation Authority


SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 4217.10 – 4217.18

ENERGY CONSERVATION CONTRACTS

ACTION

This report is for information only. No Board action is required at this time.

SIGNIFICANCE

California Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq.(Section 4217.10) was created to

help public agencies expedite and finance energy conservation measures at their

facilities, including energy efficiency and alternate energy projects. Under Section

4217.10, a public agency may forgo public bidding requirements and procure the

design, materials purchase, and construction/installation of a project in a single

contract, eliminating the need to contract for each phase separately. This

procurement method provides public agencies with administrative cost savings and

streamlines project delivery, so that public agencies can more quickly realize the

operational and maintenance cost savings from implementing energy conservation

measures.

Staff will provide an overview of Section 4217.10 and its requirements, and will also

provide examples of the types of Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) projects

that would benefit from this procurement method.

BUDGET IMPACT

There is no impact on the budget.

BACKGROUND

Section 4217.10 authorizes a public agency to enter into an energy service contract if

the governing body:

1. determines the contract is in the best interests of the public agency; and

2. finds that the anticipated cost to the public agency for the thermal or electrical

energy or conservation services will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to

the public agency for the energy that would have been consumed in the

absence of the contract.

of 2

13441306.1

These findings must be made at a public hearing, noticed two weeks in advance.

Holding a public hearing and making such findings are required for each energy

service contract that JPB enters into under Section 4217.10.

Prepared By: Michelle Senatore, Principal Planner, Sustainability 650.508.6384

of 2

13441309.1

AGENDA ITEM # 20

MAY 4, 2017


STAFF REPORT



Executive Director

FROM: April Chan Kathleen Kelly

Chief Officer, Planning, Grants and

Transportation Authority


SUBJECT: CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ENERGY SERVICE CONTRACT FOR

ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHTING RETROFIT AT THE SAN CARLOS CALTRAIN

STATION

ACTION

Staff Coordinating Council recommends that the Board call for a public hearing to be

held at its June 1, 2017 meeting to consider entering into an energy service contract to

retrofit light fixtures at the San Carlos Caltrain Station with energy-efficient lights,

pursuant to the terms of California Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq. (Section

4217.10).

SIGNIFICANCE

Setting the public hearing is required in order for a public agency to enter into an

energy service contract under the authority of Section 4217.10. Setting the public

hearing will also allow the Board to receive public input on the proposed energy

service contract.

BUDGET IMPACT

Holding a public hearing will not impact the budget.

BACKGROUND

The Caltrain 2015-2024 Strategic Plan includes goals to minimize Caltrain’s

environmental footprint and efficiently deliver service. The proposed energy service

contract to retrofit high-intensity discharge lights at the San Carlos Caltrain Station with

energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) lights will reduce the station’s energy

consumption and associated operational and maintenance costs. The proposed

project was developed in partnership with San Mateo County Energy Watch, a

collaboration between Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and the City/County

Association of Governments of San Mateo County, which provides energy-efficiency

services to county residents, businesses, and public agencies.

of 2

13441309.1

The proposed energy service contract would include the design, materials purchase,

and installation of the LED lights. Section 4217.10 authorizes a public agency to enter

into an energy service contract if the governing body:

1. determines the contract is in the best interests of the public agency; and

2. finds that the anticipated cost to the public agency for the thermal or electrical

energy or conservation services will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to

the public agency for the energy that would have been consumed in the

absence of the contract.

These findings must be made at a public hearing, noticed two weeks in advance.

The specifics of the project and energy service contract, estimated operational cost

savings, and estimated PG&E rebates will be presented to the Board at the beginning

of the June 1 public hearing.

Prepared by: Michelle Senatore, Principal Planner, Sustainability 650.508.6384

of 4

AGENDA ITEM # 21

MAY 4, 2017

PENINSULA CORRIRDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STAFF REPORT



General Manager/CEO

FROM: Seamus Murphy


SUBJECT: STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

ACTION

This report is for information only. No Board action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE

Staff will provide regular updates to the Board in accordance with the approved

Legislative Program.

STATE ISSUES

AS OF 4/24/2017:

On April 6, 2017, the Legislature passed a landmark transportation funding package,

Senate Bill (SB) 1. The bill passed largely along party lines (Senate 27-11 and Assembly

54-26).

This is the first time in 40 years, that the Legislature has approved a major state

transportation funding package with ongoing revenue backed by new transportation-

related taxes and fee.

The $5.24 billion per year funding package, which generates new revenues from

various taxes and fees, is designed to repair and maintain state highways and local

roads, improve trade corridors, and support public transit & active transportation.

The funding package also includes a provision ACA 5 (Frazier), which will place a

constitutional amendment on the November 2018 ballot to firewall the resources from

being diverted away from their intended use.

of 4

Highlights from SB1:

Program Amount (Annual)

Local Streets and Roads $1.5B

State Highway Maintenance and Rehabilitation $1.5B

Public Transit Operations and Capital $750M

Highway Bridge and Culvert Maintenance $400M

High Priority Freight Corridor $300M

Congested Corridor Relief $250M

Local Partnership Program $200M

Active Transportation Program $100M

Regional Transportation Improvement Program $82.5M

Local Planning Grants $25M

Transportation Research $7M

Revenue Source Amount (Annual)

12-Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax (effective 11/1/17) $24B

Vehicle Registration Surcharge (effective 1/1/18) $16.3B

20-Cent / Gallon Diesel Excise Tax (effective 1/1/17) $7.3B

4 Percent Diesel Sales Tax (effective 11/1/17) $3.5B

$100 Zero Emission Vehicle Fee (effective 2020) $200M

General Fund Loan Repayments $706M (one time)

New Programs:

Congested Corridors Program

The bill establishes a new “Solutions for Congested Corridors Program” and authorizes

$250 million per year for annual. The program, to be administered by the California

Transportation Commission (CTC), focuses on multi-modal solutions to the most

congested corridors in the state and takes a performance based approach. The

Caltrain corridor and 101 highway projects would be eligible for funding.

State-Local Partnership Program for “Self-Help” Counties

The bill authorizes $200 million per year to be continuously appropriated for a new

program for counties that have dedicated transportation funding from uniform

developer fees or voter-approved taxes. The program is similar to the State-Local

Partnership Program established by Proposition 1B except it is limited to counties, so

unfortunately transit agencies with voter approved taxes are not eligible. The bill

requires the CTC to adopt guidelines for the program on or before January 1, 2018

of 4

Intercity and Commuter Rail Funding

The bill boosts funding for intercity rail and commuter rail by dedicating a new

0.5 percent diesel sales tax to this purpose. Funds may be spent for operations or

capital and the actual amount of revue each year will depend on diesel prices and

sales. Of the approximately $37.5 million available each year, funds would be

distributed as the following:

50 percent intercity rail services (Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner)

50 percent commuter rail services (Caltrain, ACE, SMART, MetroLink, Coaster).

The funding would be evenly split among the commuter rail services until

July 1, 2019, when the funds will be allocated on a formula basis, pursuant to

new guidelines to be established by CalSTA with input from commuter rail

services.

Other Programs:

State Transit Assistance: Increases the incremental sales tax on diesel fuel dedicated to

the STA, generating approx. $250 million per year to be used for transit capital and

operations purposes. Additional $105 million per year to the STA program, for “state of

good repair” types of expenditures.

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program: Increases approximately $245 million per year

to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, the competitive transit capital program

overseen by the California State Transportation Agency.

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): Boosts funding the STIP by setting the

rate at 17.3 cents/gallon on July 1, 2019, plus an annual adjustment to keep pace with

inflation that will be begin in July 1, 2020. MTC estimates that for the Bay Area, this

amounts to approximately $140 million over 10 years.

Related Legislation:

In parallel to the negotiations on SB 1 to secure two-thirds support, several other bills

were amended and must pass for SB 1 to take effect. Notable earmarks include in the

companion bills include:

$427 million for the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor for five

specific projects, including grade separation projects, bridge widening, an

interchange and the 91 Toll Connector to Interstate 15 North

$400 million for the extension of the Altamont Commuter Express to Ceres and

Merced from the TIRCP

$100 million for the University of California, Merced Campus Parkway Project from

the State Highway Account

SB 496 (Canella), whose provisions were recently amended into a bill originally

authored by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin DeLéon (who remains as a coauthor)

now pertains to indemnity agreements with design professionals.

of 4

SB 496 provides that with respect to all contracts for design services entered into after

January 1, 2018, indemnity agreements are unenforceable, except under certain

circumstances.

FEDERAL ISSUES

AS OF 4/24/2017:

The Department of Transportation Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Appropriations Bill expires on

April 28, 2017. There are several items on President Trump’s agenda such as the

$1.4 billion for the border wall that are stalling negotiations. Staff expects at least a one

week continuing resolution of the FY2017 bills.

This week, while touring the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in

Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. Transportation Secretary Transportation Elaine Chao

said that the $1 trillion infrastructures package will likely debut this summer, after the

Administration tackles tax reform. Secretary Chao has previously said the infrastructure

plan could be released as early as May.

Prepared By: Casey Fromson, Director, Government

and Community Affairs

650-508-6493

of 2

AGENDA ITEM # 22

MAY 4, 2017

PENINSULA CORRIRDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD

STAFF REPORT



General Manager/CEO

FROM: Seamus Murphy


SUBJECT: REGIONAL MEASURE 3

ACTION

This report is for information only. No Board action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is leading an effort to pursue a new

regional transportation funding measure (RM3) for the 2018 election cycle. RM3 would

increase the tolls on the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges (San Francisco-

Oakland Bay Bridge, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Carquinez Bridge,

Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Antioch Bridge and Richmond-San Rafael Bridge).

Revenues generated by a $1 to $3 toll increase would potentially generate $1.7 billion

to $5 billion over 25 years. Revenues generated by the toll increase are expected to

fund projects that demonstrate a strong nexus to reducing congestion and increasing

efficiency in the bridge corridor.

As a fee, a simple majority of voters would be needed to approve the measure. Before

it would be voted on, it must first be authorized by the state through legislation.

Senator Jim Beall has introduced Senate Bill 595 as the spot bill for this measure.

In December, MTC held a Commission workshop on the RM3 process and that agenda

packet is also included for your reference as well as Senator Beall’s authorizing bill

factsheet.

BACKGROUND

In 1988, Regional Measure 1 established a uniform $1 base toll and funded primarily a

small set of bridge replacement and expansion projects. In 2004, Regional Measure 2

raised the toll by $1 and funded a much larger set of bridge, highway, and transit

projects in the bridge corridors.

During 2017, MTC will continue engagement with partner agencies such as transit

operators and congestion management agencies regarding projects and operations

for consideration in RM3. During this same time period, there will be legislative review

of 2

and action by the state Legislature to provide MTC with authorization to put the

measure on the ballot.

In anticipation of continued engagement at the local, regional and state level on RM3,

staff has provided the attached draft candidate project list for Board review and

comment. This draft list includes projects that would not only benefit the agency but

provide congestion relief throughout the Peninsula.

Attachments

A. Draft Candidate Project List

B. MTC December Commission Workshop RM3 Agenda Item

c. Senate Bill 595 Fact Sheet

Prepared by: Casey Fromson, Director, Government and 650.508.6493

Community Affairs

Attachment A

Regional Measure 3 (RM3) - Candidate Project List

Sponsor Project Location Project Description Capital Cost Annual

Operations Cost

SMCTA/ C/CAG US 101 Managed Lanes (South of I-380)

San Antonio Rd (Santa Clara County) to I-380

Add 22 miles of managed lanes (HOV and/or HOT) in San Mateo County

up to $325M TBD

SMCTA/ C/CAG US 101 Managed Lanes (North of I-380)

US 101 from I-380 to SF County Line

Add northbound and southbound managed lane (HOV and/or HOT) from I-380 to San Francisco County line.

up to $250M TBD

SamTrans Dumbarton Corridor

Dumbarton SR 84 and Dumbarton Rail bridge, and approaches

Mix of transportation improvements to address both congestion on the Dumbarton Bridge (Highway 84) and connecting roadways, as well as the rehabilitation and repurposing of the Dumbarton rail bridge to the south.

Cost estimates will range from tens of millions to up to $1.2B (rail

solution on the rail bridge) TBD

SamTrans SamTrans El Camino Real Corridor

Palo Alto to Daly City

Add rapid transit in the ECR corridor

$16.5m for rapid transit $2.5m

SamTrans Operations at SF Transbay Terminal

Palo Alto to Daly City

Operating support for SamTrans buses operating at the SF Transbay Terminal

N/A TBD

Caltrain Calmod 2.0 SF to San Jose

Full conversion to 100% EMU + capacity increase ($440m); broadband ($30m); Maintenance Facility improvements ($36m); level boarding & platform extensions ($250M)

up to $756M TBD

Caltrain Caltrain Downtown Extension (DTX)

SF Caltrain Station to Transbay Terminal

Extending Caltrain from current terminal station in SF to the Transbay Terminal

$3.9B (total cost of project) TBD

Attachment A

SM/Foster City 101/92 Interchange improvements

San Mateo/Foster City

Array of alternatives that would improve traffic flow and increase mobility within the heavily congested 101/92 Interchange

up to $160M TBD

Redwood City Woodside Interchange

US 101/SR 84 Woodside Interchange

Improve the US 101/Woodside Interchange.

$142M TBD

Various Bicycle/Pedestrain facilities

Various

Improvements to bicycle/pedestrain access connected to toll corridors, including the San Francisco Bay Trail.

$20M TBD

WETA Expanded Ferry Service RWC

Redwood City

The new Redwood City terminal will open between 2022 and 2026, offering ferry service to San Francisco.

$94M $12M

WETA Expanded Ferry Service SSF

South San Francisco

In June of 2012, construction of the new South San Francisco terminal was completed and service was launched.

$18M $8M

BART BART Rail Car Rehab Systemwide across 5 counties

Rehabilitation of aging BART cars TBD (SM share) TBD

City of East Palo Alto

University Avenue Improvements

University Ave between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge

Improve traffic and safety through this major transportation corridor between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge.

$5M TBD

Cities Grade Separation Various Grade separation connected to toll bridge corridors.

$250M TBD

ATTACHMENT B

SB 595 (Beall) Regional Measure to Improve Mobility in Bay Area Bridge Corridors

Fact Sheet

ISSUE Transportation infrastructure is key to supporting the San Francisco Bay Area’s strong economy and maintaining California’s leadership in high-tech and high-paying jobs. Traffic congestion on the region’s freeways, overcrowding on BART, Caltrain, ferries and buses in the toll bridge corridors is eroding the Bay Area’s quality of life, access to jobs, cultural and educational opportunities, and undermining job creation and retention. The traffic chokepoints are especially acute in the corridors of the seven state-owned toll bridges that are critical east-west and north-south arteries that bind the Bay Area together.

BACKGROUND Bay Area voters have led California’s “self-help” movement in supporting new local revenue for congestion relief, including strong voter support for toll increases in 1988 and 2004. In 1988, the Legislature enacted SB 45 (Lockyer), placing on the ballot Regional Measure 1, which standardized all bridge tolls at $1 to help build the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge replacement, among other projects. The measure was approved by 70 percent.

In 2003, Senate Bill 916 (Perata) authorized Regional Measure 2, a $1 toll increase to fund transit and roadway improvements in the bridge corridors. The measure helped build numerous transportation improvements, including the Caldecott Tunnel’s 4th Bore, BART to Warm Springs Extension (the first phase of BART to Silicon Valley), BART seismic retrofit and HOV lanes on Interstate 80, among other major projects. The measure was approved by 57 percent. In 2005, the Legislature delegated administration of all bridge toll revenue to the Bay Area Toll Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s affiliate agency which shares the same governing board.

THIS BILL SB 595 would provide voters in the nine Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma) the opportunity to jumpstart the next generation of critical transportation improvements in the bridge corridors funded by an increase in bridge tolls. The bill would require the MTC to place a measure on the ballot in all nine counties. The expenditure plan, the toll level and the timing of the vote are not yet specified in the bill and are subject to discussion with members of the Legislature and key stakeholders. SB 595 will include strong accountability provisions to ensure that funds are invested according to the voter-approved plan.

While SB 1 (Beall) provided a substantial increase in state funds focused primarily on repairing local roads and the state highway system – the state’s aging pains – SB 595 will address the Bay Area’s growing pains, by improving mobility and enhancing travel options in the region’s bridge corridors.

STATUS/VOTES

SUPPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission

OPPOSITION None on file

FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynne Jensen Andres [email protected] (916) 651-4015

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Attachment C

J G C J B DR G D P J R K Y M Z AGENDA J H E D ...and+Minutes/JPB/Board...PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT...

Documents

Transcript of J G C J B DR G D P J R K Y M Z AGENDA J H E D ...and+Minutes/JPB/Board...PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT...