[31:08] >> Good morning and welcome to our second

[31:10] meeting of the year. We will go ahead

[31:13] and get started. And it's January

[31:16] 22nd, 2026 at 9:02 and we're ready to

[31:20] please take roll call.

[31:22] >> Director Ames?

[31:23] >> Here.

[31:24] >> Director Flores?

[31:25] >> Here.

[31:26] >> Director Foley?

[31:27] >> Present.

[31:28] >> Director Ghosh?

[31:29] >> Here.

[31:30] >> Director Li?

[31:31] >> Here.

[31:32] >> Director Raburn?

[31:33] >> Here.

[31:34] >> Director Rinn?

[31:35] >> Here.

[31:36] >> Vice President Wright?

[31:37] >> Here.

[31:38] >> President Hernandez?

[31:39] >> Present.

[31:40] >> We have a quorum.

[31:41] >> Thank you. We'll go ahead and

[31:42] please stand for the Pledge of

[31:43] Allegiance.

[31:44] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[31:45] United States of America, and to the

[31:46] republic for which it stands, one

[31:47] nation under God, indivisible, with

[31:48] liberty and justice for all.

[32:04] >> We're now heading into your

[32:06] introduction of special guests. And I

[32:07] will at this time turn it over to

[32:10] Director Ghosh, who will introduce

[32:17] William White.

[32:25] >> Thank you, Chair. I wanted to take

[32:28] this time to recognize Mr. William

[32:34] White for his leadership over the last

[32:36] 15 years and founding Member of the

[32:41] BART Police Civilian Review Board.

[32:43] This happened soon after the murder of

[32:46] Oscar Grant and William played a

[32:50] pivotal role in transparent oversight

[32:52] of the BART's Police Department. I

[32:54] did not get a chance to work with him,

[32:58] as I started my term last year, but

[33:00] even in the one year that we have

[33:03] interacted, I have just been to

[33:05] grateful for his advice and his

[33:07] presence, and his deep history with the

[33:12] Civilian Review Board. He consistently

[33:15] elevated community voice and he was

[33:17] instrumental in advancing critical

[33:21] policies, including body-worn camera,

[33:23] bias-based profiling, one of the

[33:25] nation's first minimal use-of-force

[33:28] stars. His fairness, integrity and

[33:30] leadership in case review strengthened

[33:33] public trust and accountability for the

[33:34] BART Police Department. We want to

[33:37] extend our sincere appreciation for his

[33:39] many years' of service, and we were

[33:42] coordinating with William, and thank

[33:44] you, Mag and Bob, for all of the work

[33:46] that you did, but unfortunately he did

[33:48] have a family emergency this morning.

[33:50] He was supposed to join us by Zoom. He

[33:52] is not able to do that. But I'm happy

[33:54] if there are any comments from folks,

[33:59] we can us send him the recording. But

[34:03] truly it was a great honor to have

[34:05] interacted with him even for the

[34:10] chance that I got. We have a plaque

[34:13] for him that will be accepted by

[34:19] Dana Lang and former BPCRB

[34:25] Member Kidd. Can we go to comments?

[34:28] >> We can continue.

[34:41] >> Good morning, President Hernandez,

[34:45] and Members of BART Board of

[34:46] Directors. My name is Dana Lang and

[34:48] I'm current Chair of the Bart Police

[34:53] Civilian Review Board. We value Mr.

[34:56] William White's work for the

[34:58] last 15 years as a founding Member of

[35:00] this very important organization, and

[35:02] it's particularly important at this

[35:04] point in time. His mantra was

[35:07] transparency, and fairness. And that

[35:08] is what we want to continue to advance.

[35:12] So thank you for honoring him. And

[35:17] with me is Sharon Kidd, who will be

[35:22] accepting on his behalf.

[35:24] >> Great. Good morning everyone. My

[35:26] name is Sharon Kidd and I'm a past

[35:29] Board Member of BART's Civilian Review

[35:31] Board. I came on with Bill and George,

[35:36] and Bill was our pillar. He was the

[35:40] one who instructed us and kept us in

[35:46] your places because we both came from

[35:48] the City of Berkeley Police Civilian

[35:52] Review Board. I wish Bill were here,

[35:54] but I'm honored for receiving and thank

[35:57] you for recognizing him. Thank you.

[36:19] [ APPLAUSE ]

[36:24] >> Thank you. I think I'm done. It's

[36:38] hard to encapsulate so many decades' of

[36:42] work, but very grateful. Thank you.

[36:45] >> Thank you, Director Ghosh and thank

[36:49] you, Mr. White for all your dedication

[36:51] and service to the BART family, and

[36:55] wish you would have been here

[36:59] in-person, but I'm sure the award will

[37:01] be given to you gratefully and again,

[37:04] appreciate all your time and

[37:07] dedication. We have a public speaker.

[37:12] Patrick Caceres.

[37:14] >> Good morning, Board of Directors.

[37:18] Patrick Caceres Investigator with

[37:20] Bart's Office of the IP. I will be very

[37:25] Brave and thank you Director Ghosh for

[37:28] recognizing William White. He was always

[37:29] a Board Member since the time that

[37:31] I have gotten here, and so I have

[37:33] worked over ten-plus years with him,

[37:35] and as everyone said, he has always been

[37:37] a very amazing leader. Someone that

[37:40] has led with integrity and somebody who

[37:42] has always brought a voice to the table

[37:45] that was needed. So I appreciate him

[37:48] and his mentorship and his cooperation

[37:50] with our office, the Office of the

[37:53] Independent Police Auditor. Thank you.

[37:56] >> Thank you, Patrick. At this time,

[37:59] we'll go to Item No. 2, which is report

[38:02] of the Board President. I just wanted

[38:04] to remind our Board of Directors that

[38:06] we'll be having our meeting on February

[38:12] 12th, and it's an all-day, it's casual.

[38:14] You don't have to wear your suit and

[38:17] tie and please come comfy, if you would

[38:19] like. So we'll look forward to

[38:23] that and sending out kind of the run of

[38:25] the show and if you have questions,

[38:28] please make sure you tell Mr. Powers.

[38:31] And then Item No. 3.

[38:35] >> We have two public comments,

[38:36] sorry.

[38:37] >> The first is Barney Smits. Barney.

[38:42] >> Barney, go ahead.

[38:43] >> My name is Barney Smits. I'm a

[38:46] licensed professional engineer with

[38:47] over 25 years' experience as a BART

[38:50] engineer and Fire/Life Safety expert.

[38:51] Thank you, President Hernandez. I see

[38:53] many in the agenda where the seats on

[38:56] the various BART Board Committees are

[38:58] being appointed. Over the last three

[39:00] years, I have pointed out the

[39:02] mismanagement and lack of transparency

[39:05] on the BSVII project. I have made

[39:07] numerous requests for the BART Board to

[39:09] establish a Sub-Committee on the BSVII

[39:11] project as both BART and VTA are

[39:14] failing in BART Board oversight.

[39:17] Again, this Sub-Committee appears to be

[39:19] missing. How many Members of the

[39:21] Board have read the report from the

[39:23] BART Office of Inspector General dated

[39:27] December 19, 2025? The record entitled

[39:31] "transparency and communication gaps

[39:32] in the BSVII project." Noted the limited

[39:35] public discussion and mixed messaging

[39:36] that evolve over the past decade and

[39:39] the report noted without clear

[39:40] communication and consistent Board

[39:43] oversight, BART risks losing influence

[39:45] over the design decisions that directly

[39:47] affect its ability to operate and

[39:49] maintain the future extension safely

[39:52] and efficiently. The report confirms

[39:54] that the comprehensive agreement gives

[39:56] BART approval authority over design

[39:58] elements that affect operations,

[40:00] maintenance and safety. The report

[40:03] recommended that BART management

[40:06] provide detailed reoccurring public

[40:07] presentations to the BART Board on the

[40:09] status of the BSVII project, and as a

[40:12] minimum, these updates should include

[40:14] BART's review and approval process

[40:16] under the design criteria manual.

[40:19] These public presentations are designed

[40:21] to strengthen governance and enhance

[40:24] transparency. Please continue -- I

[40:25] continue trying to help this Board and

[40:27] BART management to understand how to

[40:29] keep BART safe. I believe that a BART

[40:31] Sub-Committee is essential to restoring

[40:33] BART's full participation in this

[40:36] critical project. I hope that you will

[40:38] double your efforts to be a full and

[40:40] equal partner on the BSVII project.

[40:44] Thank you.

[40:45] >> We also have Aleta Dupree. Aleta.

[40:50] >> Thank you, good morning. President

[40:54] Melissa Hernandez and Members. Aleta

[40:56] Dupree, for the record, she and her

[40:59] with team folds. Regarding the

[41:01] Workshop. I'm looking forward to it.

[41:04] I did get to go to the Workshop last

[41:07] year. I hope we can do that Q&A again

[41:13] where you all were asked questions

[41:14] about which did and didn't do and I

[41:17] shared about my hang gliding and

[41:20] operating trains and the fact that I

[41:24] did not play flute and I cannot play

[41:28] any musical instruments. So I like

[41:32] those ice breakers. While we

[41:33] normally don't have the agendas ready

[41:36] until usually the Friday before the

[41:39] meeting, I hope that further ahead of

[41:42] time we can publish the general theme

[41:46] of what this Workshop is about. I know

[41:50] that every year our Workshop has a

[41:53] general theme. And it is this theme

[41:55] that will help me to inform my comments

[42:02] to you, written and spoken. I hope to

[42:06] be at your Workshop. I'm presuming I'm

[42:12] always casual and I'm sure I will be

[42:14] wearing a new skirt, maybe I will wear

[42:16] a skirt with folds. Anyway, let's do

[42:19] our preparation work for this Workshop,

[42:22] pun intended and I hope to be this.

[42:25] Thank you.

[42:28] >> Thank you, Aleta. If you come

[42:30] in-person, I have a newspaper from New

[42:32] York for you. Let Bob Franklin know.

[42:37] Any other public comment?

[42:38] >> There are no additional requests to

[42:41] address the Board.

[42:42] >> Okay. Not seeing any other public

[42:44] comment we'll go to the Consent

[42:46] Calendar. I would like to just quickly

[42:50] pull item b. Just to make one little

[42:54] quick change on there, and then, do I

[42:58] have any Directors? Not seeing any

[43:00] other Directors pulling anything, I

[43:02] will go ahead and ask for a motion for

[43:05] the remaining of the agenda?

[43:07] >> President Hernandez?

[43:08] >> Yes.

[43:09] >> I would like to ask regarding item

[43:15] C if the appointee to the Bart Police

[43:19] citizen Review Board is in the audience?

[43:21] >> Yes.

[43:23] >> Or online?

[43:24] >> Perfect. Let's just go and let's

[43:26] go in a row with item B. I would just

[43:29] like to make a quick change of -- on

[43:35] the VTA Committee. We're doing a

[43:39] little switcheroo as Ames as the

[43:46] Member. Now we'll go to item C. The

[43:49] appoint of Bart Police Civilian Review

[43:53] Board Member District 7. That is

[43:55] Jennifer.

[43:56] >> Rakowski.

[43:59] >> Correct.

[44:06] >> Welcome and please introduce

[44:09] yourself.

[44:10] >> Thank you so much to all of the

[44:14] Directors. My name is Jennifer

[44:16] Rakowski. I have been a Bart rider,

[44:20] proudly, for over 30 years, and I want

[44:24] to particularly acknowledge Director

[44:28] Flores for nominating me for this

[44:32] Review Board, and for all of the

[44:36] Directors' consideration. I am humbled

[44:39] both by the legacy of those who have

[44:41] been on the Board before, and the

[44:44] knowledge that the current oversight

[44:48] structure is rooted in the community

[44:52] grief and family grief of Oscar Grant

[44:55] that took place in District 7. Many

[45:00] community voices have risen up to

[45:03] direct BART on a path towards more

[45:08] equity and Justice, and I see BART

[45:10] stepping up to be a leader in transit

[45:18] agency around use-of-force, around

[45:24] excited delirium and I look forward to

[45:25] playing a role in continuing that

[45:29] integrity. I personally have knowledge

[45:31] of the important role and unique role

[45:34] BART plays in our region with missing

[45:39] children, and disabled who are lost,

[45:44] and needing to be secured in an

[45:49] equitable manner. And ultimately the

[45:54] importance BART plays getting people to

[45:56] work, getting them to family, getting

[45:58] them to all of the places where they

[46:01] make memories, and I plan to approach

[46:06] this role with respect, transparency,

[46:09] and accountability as the Hallmarks of

[46:12] the position. Thank you.

[46:16] >> Thank you. And this morning we've

[46:19] honored William White for his 15

[46:24] years' of service of he was thoughtful,

[46:28] fair and dedicated for 15 years, and he

[46:32] exhibited outstanding character. And

[46:34] your comments really resonate with me,

[46:37] and I saw Chair Dana Lang in the

[46:41] audience smiling as well. So welcome

[46:42] on-board.

[46:45] >> Thank you. I will move approval

[46:50] of the Consent Calendar.

[46:51] >> I will second. I will just

[46:54] clarify, as amended, on the consent

[46:56] item and I will second that.

[46:57] >> Yes, we do have -- thank you,

[47:00] Director Raburn and Director Rinn. We

[47:06] also have another public comment.

[47:12] Esther Waltz for item 3I. Good

[47:18] morning, Esther.

[47:28] >> Good morning. Nice to meet you,

[47:35] Bob, and thank you for having me, and

[47:43] the reason I would like to join the

[47:50] BART Task Force is to help make BART

[47:55] friendlier through improvements, you

[47:57] know, like, making it more efficient

[48:00] for people transitioning from the

[48:01] concourse down to the platform, make

[48:04] that area part of the system more

[48:06] efficient. So that it allows the train

[48:11] that sits at the stop, for those that

[48:13] need a little extra time embarking and

[48:18] disembarking the trains can do so

[48:24] safely, and making thing -- educating

[48:26] people on being more courteous to

[48:30] Seniors and disabled, and educating

[48:33] youth, because I have seen some things

[48:38] where people have -- I have seen it

[48:42] with people haven't always been

[48:44] courteous enough to give up in

[48:45] particular the seats that are marked

[48:50] yellowish-green, which designates that

[48:53] a Priority Area for the disabled

[49:00] people. Expectant mothers and others

[49:02] who need -- I know I have seen a lot of

[49:09] people willy nilly, giving me their

[49:12] seat, and they stand the rest of their

[49:17] ride. I'm capable with standing and

[49:23] holding on. Thank you for your time.

[49:34] >> Thank you, Esther. All right, do

[49:36] we have any public speakers?

[49:38] >> We have one, Aleta Dupree.

[49:40] >> Aleta.

[49:41] >> Aleta, please, go ahead.

[49:44] >> Thanks again, President Melissa

[49:48] Hernandez, and Members. Aleta Dupree

[49:50] for the, she and her with team folds.

[49:52] Thank you for the streamlined handling

[49:57] of the public comment today because I

[50:02] often get tripped up on the Consent

[50:04] Calendar. Some business about the cash

[50:06] carts. Very good report. We need to

[50:08] make it easier for people to haul that

[50:12] heavy money around. I do think about

[50:14] when in New York, they have the revenue

[50:17] trains, and they had all those carts

[50:18] that they had to move through the

[50:21] tunnels to 370.

[50:24] J Street. They stopped doing that. I

[50:26] hope we can someday do something about

[50:28] our old revenue trains. I think we

[50:31] have revenue trains, but anyway, I can

[50:33] ask Bob about that someday. I am

[50:38] looking forward to our new appointees

[50:42] who are going to join in this work on

[50:46] our Advisory Committees. I do engage

[50:48] with both of those Committees from time

[50:50] to time, can't say I have met either of

[50:54] these people. In reading the

[50:55] background, I'm not seeing any issues.

[50:59] Certainly hope they wouldn't --

[51:00] somebody like me who is different

[51:02] wearing a skirt, because I might be

[51:05] there in-person someday. So I hope as

[51:07] they go forward that they have

[51:09] inclusive perspectives of the people

[51:11] who ride BART and being able to have

[51:13] their issues heard, and addressed.

[51:31] [ INAUDIBLE ]

[51:40] Reasonable, so I believe that this

[51:43] entire Consent Calendar reflects the

[51:45] People's system. Thank you.

[51:51] >> Thank you, Aleta. Any other public

[51:53] comment?

[51:55] >> No, there --

[51:57] >> I have Director Flores.

[52:00] >> Thank you. Before we go on to the

[52:02] vote, I would like to thank Jennifer

[52:05] for her initiative in applying for this

[52:07] position for the Civilian Review Board.

[52:09] She comes highly recommended from many

[52:12] constituents in Alameda for her years'

[52:13] of service to the City around Police

[52:15] reform and racial equity, as well as

[52:18] her public service and tenant

[52:20] protections. So I just want to say

[52:21] thank you and look forward to her

[52:23] service here at BART.

[52:26] >> Thank you. And we have --

[52:30] >> If I may, I would also like to

[52:35] thank Esther Waltz for stepping up to

[52:37] represent the riders of the blue line,

[52:40] which I rode in this morning. So thank

[52:41] you again.

[52:43] >> Yes, we always want to thank our

[52:46] Committee Members, on all of our boards

[52:47] because a lot of it is dedication of

[52:50] their own time, their own personal

[52:52] time. Thank you again. Thank you for

[52:53] the public speakers. We have a motion

[52:55] and second for the Consent Calendar.

[52:56] If you could please take the roll.

[52:58] >> Yes.

[52:59] Director Ames?

[53:00] >> Yes.

[53:01] >> Director Flores?

[53:02] >> Aye.

[53:03] >> Director Foley?

[53:04] >> Aye.

[53:05] >> Director Ghosh?

[53:07] >> Yes.

[53:08] >> Director Li?

[53:09] >> Yes.

[53:10] >> Director Raburn?

[53:11] >> Yea.

[53:12] >> Director Rinn?

[53:13] >> Aye.

[53:14] >> Vice President Wright?

[53:15] >> Aye.

[53:16] >> President Hernandez?

[53:17] >> Aye.

[53:18] >> Motion passes unanimously.

[53:19] >> Thank you. We'll go on to our

[53:21] General Manager's report.

[53:22] >> Good morning, President Hernandez,

[53:25] Vice President Wright, Board of Directors.

[53:26] A couple of updates from the GM here:

[53:30] Ridership, we're tracking about 3.5% above

[53:33] budget for January and it continues to grow.

[53:34] A lot of it is driven by our on-time

[53:38] performance and the work we're doing

[53:40] there, but also these large events,

[53:42] especially over this past weekend. The

[53:46] Memorial for Bob Weir at the Civic

[53:49] Center, the K-Pop band twice had had a

[53:51] nice ridership boost at the Oakland

[53:53] arena and obviously, the good weather

[53:57] has helped our ridership. I wanted to

[54:03] second President Hernandez, our next

[54:04] Board Meeting the very next one is

[54:06] going to be the Workshop, February

[54:09] 12th, all day in this Board Room. You

[54:12] heard about the dress attire from the

[54:13] President there, but I would say this,

[54:15] it's got a singular focus, and I sent

[54:18] out a note, I think, last Friday or

[54:21] last Thursday or Wednesday or

[54:22] something. The singular focus on that

[54:24] Workshop is the fiscal cliff. There's

[54:29] variants of that fiscal Cliff, the

[54:32] pre-before the fiscal cliff itself and

[54:35] obviously, what we're doing to drive

[54:36] ridership up in 2026, FY'26, and

[54:41] calendar-year 26 and build public

[54:44] confidence. At the core of the next

[54:45] meeting is going to be a discussion

[54:47] about our fiscal cliff at the Workshop.

[54:51] Single tracking is going to happen the

[54:53] next two Sundays on the yellow line

[54:57] between Rockridge and Orinda. And it's

[55:00] for vegetation management, and we'll be

[55:02] out there doing that, and then our

[55:04] traction power group will take

[55:07] advantage of that window to maximize

[55:11] their access to the trackway. So that

[55:13] is the next two Sundays we'll be single

[55:17] tracking. I guess to all of the

[55:19] directors here, but you know, maybe I

[55:22] will take a little -- I minor league

[55:24] get myself into trouble, but that is

[55:26] okay. Director Flores, and Director

[55:28] Raburn, but for everybody, West Oakland

[55:31] TOD phase 1, a quick update on that.

[55:35] Been able to secure tax credits and

[55:38] financing for phase 1, and it's going

[55:43] to deliver approximately 240

[55:45] Affordable-Housing Units there. And

[55:47] what is most important, for me, on

[55:50] schedule, schedule, schedule, we hope

[55:52] to begin construction on that phase

[55:57] 1,240-Affordable-Housing Units this

[55:58] summer, the summer of 26 here, right

[56:00] around the corner. I know it's

[56:02] Director Flores and Director Raburn

[56:05] have a long history out there trying to

[56:09] take that happen. So I appreciate

[56:12] yours and Director Flores' commitment

[56:14] there. Comedy train is this Saturday

[56:16] and it's -- I'm telling -- I'm a firm

[56:19] believer it's these complementary

[56:20] events that we're doing that help drive

[56:22] up ridership, and this is just another

[56:25] example of that. It's this Saturday,

[56:29] it's called SF sketch fest on rails.

[56:31] We're going to have four comedians

[56:36] performing 15-minute sets on-board.

[56:38] It's sold out. You had to get a ticket

[56:39] and all of that. It's sold out,

[56:43] running from 12th Street to

[56:51] Pittsburg-Bay Point. So it's disco style

[56:54] with headphones and all of that. We're

[56:56] trying that and look like it's going to

[56:58] be a success, because it sold-out

[57:00] quick. I want to assure everybody here

[57:04] about our being at the center of and

[57:07] being ready for these large events and

[57:10] the next big one coming up is obviously

[57:12] the Super Bowl. Our Chief

[57:18] Transportation Officer and Chief

[57:20] Communication Officer, Rodd Lee is at

[57:21] the center of discussions, running

[57:27] longer trains, not just the event

[57:29] itself, but a watch party at Lake

[57:32] Merritt and a watch party downtown and

[57:34] tracking all of that and coordinating

[57:37] with the other agencies including

[57:40] Capitol Corridor, which runs all the way

[57:41] down to the Stadium this. So and we

[57:44] fronted a website on our website it's

[57:48] BART.gov Super Bowl at the center of

[57:52] those discussions and making sure that

[57:54] all works out. Two more items

[57:56] quickly here: I hope you are all

[57:59] tracking later today, we have a Member

[58:02] of the BART Accessibility Task Force

[58:03] that was in front of you and you just

[58:06] approved that Membership to that

[58:07] Committee. They are going to their

[58:10] annual meet-and-greet here today in

[58:11] this room, ore actually it's across the

[58:13] hall, sorry in the multi-purpose room

[58:16] from 3-4:30, if you are around it's

[58:18] always a nice event. Introduce

[58:19] yourself, get to know some of the

[58:22] Members of the BART Accessibility Task

[58:24] Force. Michael and I will make every

[58:26] attempt to get there. I know I have a

[58:28] 3:00, but I will be down there at some

[58:30] point and Michael will be down there.

[58:33] Anyway, it's just good to strengthen

[58:35] those relationships, because all voices

[58:37] matter here at BART. And then the last

[58:40] item in front of you, you should have a

[58:44] folder. But so next Tuesday and

[58:48] Wednesday, we, collectively we are

[58:49] going to be up in Sacramento. It looks

[58:53] like there's six Directors heading up

[58:54] there. It will be the six of you,

[58:57] Staff, and our advocates, our labor

[58:59] partners as well. And we're going to

[59:00] be up in the Capitol. We're going to

[59:02] meet with our State Legislators from

[59:04] both parties and the Governor's Office.

[59:06] Right now you have a draft run of

[59:10] show, the meetings are always changing

[59:14] getting added, getting subtracted.

[59:16] We're trying to fit that into their

[59:20] calendars there and I want to

[59:26] say because we always run so fast,

[59:29] going boom, boom, boom. I wanted to

[59:30] thank you for taking time out of

[59:32] everything else you have got going to

[59:33] join me up there with me and Rodd and

[59:37] others as we look forward to some very

[59:40] productive discussions up there. So

[59:43] with that, President Hernandez, Vice

[59:45] President Wright, I will conclude my

[59:47] GM's report.

[59:48] >> Thank you. And I unfortunately

[59:50] will not be able to attend the

[59:53] accessibility. I will be at ACTC and I

[59:56] know my -- the person that I had

[59:58] appointed to that Task Force had

[1:00:01] emailed me. So I'm sure she will be

[1:00:03] there.

[1:00:05] >> We'll be there.

[1:00:06] >> And that you are able to make it as

[1:00:08] well. So we'll go ahead and go on to

[1:00:10] public comment and I do have Glen

[1:00:12] Overton.

[1:00:32] Good morning, Mr. Overton.

[1:00:33] >> Good morning, President Hernandez.

[1:00:38] General Manager Powers. You know they

[1:00:42] say stuff roll downhills. Well, this

[1:00:46] guy is a lot of good stuff rolling

[1:00:50] downhills. Believe me when I tell you.

[1:00:53] I came into the station this morning,

[1:00:57] and I couldn't even use my dust mop.

[1:01:03] Well, I got a different one this time.

[1:01:09] I declare I already I was all fired

[1:01:11] up. I was looking for those spots. I

[1:01:16] couldn't find a one. I seen a lot of

[1:01:24] contented BART riders. Hereby I

[1:01:29] entered the system -- why? Because

[1:01:34] President Hernandez and Bob Powers and

[1:01:39] Staff care. And the State ought to care.

[1:01:44] This is a caring for California, not

[1:01:50] just the Bay Area. It's a caring for

[1:01:55] the world, not just California. It's a

[1:02:00] caring for us, and all of our riders

[1:02:04] count, a moment of silence for all of

[1:02:08] us.

[1:02:22] For us. Thank you.

[1:02:29] >> Thank you

[1:02:30] >> Thank you. Public speakers online,

[1:02:34] Aleta Dupree and then Barney Smits.

[1:02:40] >> Thanks again, President Melissa

[1:02:42] Hernandez, and Members. Aleta Dupree, for

[1:02:43] the record, she and her with team

[1:02:47] folds. Very good report. I always

[1:02:49] enjoy Bob's meaningful and helpful

[1:02:51] reports. We're doing better and we're

[1:02:54] doing well with ridership. I see where

[1:02:56] that is considered to pre-pandemic. I

[1:03:00] think the New York City subways around

[1:03:04] 85-90%. So we want to get people back

[1:03:07] on the trains. And I'm interested in

[1:03:09] the idea of this comedy train. I

[1:03:12] didn't buy a ticket for it, couldn't be

[1:03:14] there. I like the disco theme, and we

[1:03:19] don't do express trains very often.

[1:03:21] When I go to New York, they have these

[1:03:24] express routes, and I think this

[1:03:26] express train is going to be longer

[1:03:29] than the old JFK express that ran in

[1:03:31] New York City from 1978 to 1990, I

[1:03:37] think, which I used often. They still

[1:03:39] have express routes in New York City

[1:03:41] that I enjoy. And given the disco

[1:03:43] theme, I'm going to borrow some Don

[1:03:49] Cornelius here would say at the end of

[1:03:50] the show, it's going to be a stone gas,

[1:03:57] honey, peace, love and soul. Let me

[1:03:59] know how that goes. We need to be

[1:04:01] ready for our special events especially

[1:04:03] with Clipper. Clipper Executive Board

[1:04:05] will meet on Monday. Maybe I will be

[1:04:07] there. And last year I did get to go

[1:04:10] to the BART Accessibility Task Force

[1:04:15] meet-and-greet and found it to be very

[1:04:18] helpful and Christine Arsenault at the

[1:04:21] time was Chair. I hope you will be

[1:04:23] there. I'm not going to be there, I'm

[1:04:25] too far away and I'm sure the food will

[1:04:29] be very good. Thank you, Bob answered

[1:04:31] the question about the theme of the

[1:04:34] Workshop. So now I know. I can get

[1:04:36] ready for that. I ask in all of these

[1:04:40] items here, we remember that BART is

[1:04:41] the People's system. Thank you.

[1:04:44] >> Thank you. And now we have Barney.

[1:04:50] >> My name is Barney Smits. I'm a

[1:04:53] licensed professional engineer with

[1:04:55] over 25 years' experience as a

[1:04:56] BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety

[1:04:59] expert. Thank you General Manager

[1:05:00] Powers for the update on ridership and

[1:05:03] the upcoming public events. See there's

[1:05:05] a report on nine safety incidents in

[1:05:07] the 4th quarter of last year. I note

[1:05:10] that BART never finished their analysis

[1:05:11] on the TransBay Tube Fire and smoke

[1:05:14] incident. What happened after train

[1:05:16] 387 got moving again, and during

[1:05:18] the remaining seven minutes before the

[1:05:20] train exited the tunnel to safety?

[1:05:22] When is BART going to publish a full

[1:05:24] public briefing on the safety incident?

[1:05:27] I asked every times about the status

[1:05:30] of various traction power Substations

[1:05:32] and the overall traction power system?

[1:05:34] No information has been provided to the

[1:05:37] public. Is the Civic Center Substation

[1:05:39] still not operational? How many months

[1:05:41] behind schedule is this Substation?

[1:05:43] Again, I'm asking how many Substations

[1:05:45] are out of service, how many traction

[1:05:48] power cable faults are currently

[1:05:50] hindering BART operations? What is

[1:05:52] wrong with the TransBay Tube's

[1:05:54] electrical power system? I understand

[1:05:56] that there's been an operating

[1:05:59] restriction in the TransBay Tube since

[1:06:02] April. That appears to be nine months.

[1:06:05] Next I would like to ask about the

[1:06:08] BSVII project. Did the General Manager

[1:06:10] read the BART Inspector General's

[1:06:14] report of 2025 and are you prepared to

[1:06:16] provide this Board and the public with

[1:06:18] the detailed presentation on the status

[1:06:20] of the BSVII project that the report

[1:06:23] recommended? If not, could you

[1:06:25] enlighten the Board and the public how

[1:06:27] you plan to strengthen governance and

[1:06:29] transparency on this project as BART is

[1:06:31] a full partner and bears fiduciary and

[1:06:34] legal responsibilities for the safety

[1:06:36] and transparent execution of this

[1:06:40] project. Thank you.

[1:06:41] >> Thank you. Moving on to one of our

[1:06:46] Directors. Robert Raburn.

[1:06:47] >> Thank you, President Hernandez. I

[1:06:52] just wanted to thank GM Powers for

[1:06:59] his report and while BART trains

[1:07:02] are sold out on that date, sketch fest,

[1:07:06] I went to the website and looked at the

[1:07:09] list of events, and I started

[1:07:11] scrolling. And I kept scrolling. And

[1:07:14] it is page after page of events with a

[1:07:23] number of headliners, Bob Odenkirk at

[1:07:24] the top of the list. This is a big

[1:07:29] deal and most venues all over the Bay

[1:07:31] Area, and most of those are BARTable.

[1:07:35] So anybody that feels left-out, you're

[1:07:42] not. Thank you.

[1:07:43] >> Thank you, Director Raburn. We

[1:07:48] will go onto to public comment,

[1:07:49] item No. 6 and we have Glen Overton.

[1:08:01] We have Glen Overton for Item No. 5.

[1:08:04] We now have Item No. 5. And then we'll

[1:08:07] have public comment and we'll have our

[1:08:09] Inspector General right after that if

[1:08:16] you want to go ahead and do public

[1:08:18] comment, sure and we'll go onto our

[1:08:22] Inspector General.

[1:08:33] >> I believe that -- I'm sorry, Madam

[1:08:39] President, and General Manager, Staff.

[1:08:43] I believe that BART has a not only an

[1:08:52] infrastructure responsibility, but an

[1:09:01] institutional responsibility. To

[1:09:04] educate the public the stations should

[1:09:11] educate, not just serve. Anyone can do

[1:09:14] that. We have in the United States, I

[1:09:16] don't know how many in the world how

[1:09:20] many transit stations, but how many of

[1:09:24] them are cultural artifacts? That can

[1:09:28] express community? This is an

[1:09:33] innovative community. BART needs to

[1:09:39] inspire innovation, education,

[1:09:41] advancement, equality. The stations

[1:09:44] should speak, levy upon the community a

[1:09:50] sense of community because it brings

[1:09:55] the communities together. I believe

[1:09:57] we have a responsibility not just for

[1:10:03] transit, but for community. Thank you.

[1:10:11] >> So the other public comments for

[1:10:16] No. 5. Barney Smits, please, go ahead.

[1:10:21] >> Actually this was item 6, but we'll

[1:10:23] go for it. My name is Barney Smits.

[1:10:26] I'm a licensed professional engineer

[1:10:27] with 25 years' experience as a BART

[1:10:30] engineer and Fire/Life Safety expert.

[1:10:31] Last meeting I asked about the

[1:10:33] significant reduction in safety on BART

[1:10:38] to Silicon Valley project and extended

[1:10:40] tunnel between emergency exits. I

[1:10:43] asked about why VTA extended the

[1:10:45] spacing to 500' when the BART facility

[1:10:48] standards requires a maximum of 300'

[1:10:50] between cross passages? This is a

[1:10:52] significant reduction in safety. This

[1:10:54] meeting I would like to ask why

[1:10:56] additional reductions in safety require

[1:10:58] patrons in an emergency to climb ten

[1:11:00] flights of stairs to reach safety at

[1:11:03] the surface? No existing BART Station

[1:11:05] requires this many stairs. No existing

[1:11:08] BART Station has -- all existing BART

[1:11:11] Stations have the surface as a point of

[1:11:13] safety. Since the comprehensive

[1:11:17] agreement gives BART approval authority

[1:11:19] over design elements that affect

[1:11:20] operations, maintenance and safety, I

[1:11:22] ask why BART is jeopardizing BART

[1:11:25] employees, patron and first-responders

[1:11:27] by allowing these significant

[1:11:29] reductions in safety? I have tried to

[1:11:32] make everyone aware of the dangers of

[1:11:35] smoke filed stations and Fire deep

[1:11:37] underground. Some say that won't

[1:11:39] happen, but the New Year's derailment

[1:11:40] and Fire a few years ago and the

[1:11:44] September TransBay Tube coverboard Fire

[1:11:45] should be a clear incident that fires

[1:11:47] and smoke filled stations do happen.

[1:11:51] The increase in third rail insulator

[1:11:54] failures coverboard and smoke

[1:11:55] incidents last year are more examples

[1:11:57] of the danger of reducing safety in the

[1:12:00] BART system. VTA's reduction in safety

[1:12:02] could result in the loss of life.

[1:12:05] Please insist that BART management

[1:12:07] utilize the comprehensive agreement to

[1:12:09] force VTA to provide BART patrons a

[1:12:12] comparable level of safety BART-Silicon

[1:12:17] Valley Phase II is safety in spite

[1:12:23] Mayor and deeper underground than any

[1:12:26] BART Station at 100' and BART should

[1:12:28] insist of returning to the faster and

[1:12:32] cheaper to twin-bore design. Thank you.

[1:12:37] >> Thank you. We are going to Item

[1:12:40] No. 5, which is our Office of Inspector

[1:12:44] General OIG report. If we can please

[1:12:45] have them come forward.

[1:13:15] >> Good morning Directors it's good

[1:13:17] to see you this morning. I want to go

[1:13:20] ahead and click -- thank you. I'm very

[1:13:25] pleased to present our audit of

[1:13:28] construction change orders conducted by

[1:13:34] GPP Analytics an independent firm and

[1:13:38] thank GPP Analytics and Mr. Metcalf for

[1:13:40] his work on the audit and the BART

[1:13:43] Staff that cooperated and often result

[1:13:57] from factor as unforeseen site

[1:14:01] conditions design refinements

[1:14:02] regulatory requirement and owner

[1:14:05] initiated changes. And also, you know,

[1:14:07] there is fraud risk associated with

[1:14:10] them and Julian will touch on that in

[1:14:13] his report. But ultimately what this

[1:14:15] report is for to provide context for

[1:14:18] how change orders function within BART,

[1:14:22] and how there are opportunities for

[1:14:25] continued improvements, and governance

[1:14:26] accountability and of course,

[1:14:28] stewardship of public resources. With

[1:14:30] that, I'm going to hand that over to

[1:14:33] Mr. Metcalf.

[1:14:34] >> Thank you, Inspector General and

[1:14:37] thank you, Directors for having me here

[1:14:39] today. My name is Julian Metcalf and

[1:14:42] just for my presentation we'll do a

[1:14:43] quick overview of the audit scope and

[1:14:46] objectives. There's a Section on the

[1:14:48] context to help put everything into

[1:14:50] perspective, and make sure there are

[1:14:52] shared terminology and I will go over

[1:14:54] the four findings of the audit, and

[1:14:57] there's opportunity for questions at

[1:14:58] the end, of course. So you may also be

[1:15:01] aware of this, but the audit was

[1:15:06] conducted using the GAGAS standards

[1:15:08] offer otherwise known as the yellow

[1:15:11] book and to look at construction change

[1:15:13] order practices and compliance with

[1:15:15] laws and regulation, identify

[1:15:18] opportunity for improve related to

[1:15:21] risks of fraud, waste and abuse. We had

[1:15:23] a four-year scope. But I believe the

[1:15:26] findings and recommendations apply

[1:15:27] beyond this period of time to the

[1:15:28] practices in general and worth noting

[1:15:31] most of the time our sampling Mench

[1:15:36] ogle used 95% confidence level and 10%

[1:15:39] margin of error to remind everyone that

[1:15:41] the numbers here are not going to be

[1:15:42] perfect. What we talk about in one of

[1:15:44] the audit finding in particular are

[1:15:45] some limitations with the data and

[1:15:47] information that is available. So when

[1:15:48] you see the numbers I would encourage

[1:15:50] ug to look at them as ballpark figures

[1:15:53] often times they are derived from this

[1:15:56] estimate methodology and in cases

[1:15:58] where we deviated from this, the report

[1:16:01] gets into detail, and footnotes. So

[1:16:05] before getting into the nitty gritty

[1:16:08] it's worth noting that things we

[1:16:10] observed BART doing well. In our

[1:16:11] testing we saw a common compliance-

[1:16:15] oriented culture and practice. Teams

[1:16:17] and individuals were following BART

[1:16:21] policies, and concerned about BART

[1:16:22] policies as we could tell from

[1:16:24] documentation and from individual

[1:16:26] reviews. We also noticed instances of

[1:16:29] continuous improvement and proactive

[1:16:32] approach, in particular before we

[1:16:34] engage in the audit, BART's performance

[1:16:38] and innovation team engaged in a rapid

[1:16:40] improvement event convening variation

[1:16:42] stakeholders involved in the change

[1:16:44] order process and identified various

[1:16:47] inefficiencies and opportunities for

[1:16:49] improvement of which, not all of them

[1:16:51] were implemented. And a lot of that I

[1:16:53] believe was in anticipation of this

[1:16:55] audit being completed. So they may

[1:16:58] have made advancements since then, but we

[1:17:04] noted the proactive before the audit

[1:17:06] began. For context, you may all know

[1:17:07] this, but I think it's just to make

[1:17:09] sure we're speaking the same term I

[1:17:11] wanted to just mention the different

[1:17:15] definitions here. And change orders

[1:17:17] are very common, and what they mean are

[1:17:20] modifications to add or reduce work and

[1:17:23] scope, adjust timelines to contract

[1:17:25] terms. This often is due to

[1:17:27] differences in site condition and one

[1:17:28] of our findings talks about

[1:17:30] opportunities to identify many of those

[1:17:32] unexpected site conditions a little bit

[1:17:35] better. There are also allowances.

[1:17:37] Allowances are built into the contract

[1:17:41] pre-approved amount for anticipated,

[1:17:42] but not fully defined cost. So

[1:17:45] contingencies that are built in. So one

[1:17:47] of the challenges we see when we try to

[1:17:51] compare apples-to-apples of change

[1:17:54] orders across jurisdictions and Capital

[1:17:55] Programs outside of BART is not every

[1:17:58] system and not every user are use these

[1:18:01] same terms. Allowances in some

[1:18:03] situations play be considered change

[1:18:04] order by others. So when you look at

[1:18:09] raw number it's not always aims to

[1:18:11] Apples because of the term. They are

[1:18:14] good practice and present in BART and

[1:18:15] also options in contract as you likely

[1:18:19] know, if information or changes come up

[1:18:21] later in the process, BART can exercise

[1:18:23] these options and they are pre-defined

[1:18:25] and built into the contract. That is

[1:18:28] another area if you look across time,

[1:18:30] you could sending differ from what the

[1:18:33] intended amount to the actual amount

[1:18:34] and this was because of pre-defined

[1:18:37] option and finally, a type of change

[1:18:39] order is a credit and descoping. And

[1:18:42] these are noteworthy. It's

[1:18:45] positive because when you credit money

[1:18:47] back to BART, that is money coming

[1:18:49] back, but it's also worth noting these

[1:18:51] carry some amount of fraud risk,

[1:18:54] collusion and different activities

[1:18:56] could be involved in them. Yes, it's

[1:18:59] possible to bring money back, still

[1:19:02] worthy of scrutiny and attention. So

[1:19:04] this is where we get into some of the

[1:19:07] challenges of definition. This is a

[1:19:09] busy table here but you can see the

[1:19:11] first row is the total capital

[1:19:13] construction spending and we pulled

[1:19:15] this from BART's audited financial

[1:19:16] statement. So there was a consistent

[1:19:18] publicly available number we could

[1:19:20] compare against. And in the asterisks

[1:19:23] to read the fine print of what goes

[1:19:25] into it, but it's roughly the amount of

[1:19:28] money spent in each Fiscal Year on an

[1:19:30] accounting basis for capital

[1:19:32] construction spending. The next line

[1:19:33] down is the next change orders. This

[1:19:35] is the amount of extra money that was

[1:19:38] spent from change orders that have

[1:19:40] costs, and the net amount of descope

[1:19:43] and credits that were taken out of

[1:19:45] that. The lines below though these

[1:19:48] separated out, but the amount is

[1:19:50] important here because that is the net

[1:19:52] amount that costs more than planned due

[1:19:55] to change orders specifically. And

[1:19:57] when you compare them as a percentage

[1:19:59] of total capital spending it's a

[1:20:01] relatively small percent, but as we'll

[1:20:03] see in a slide shortly, this percentage

[1:20:07] is extremely varied on a project by

[1:20:10] project basis. You can start to see a

[1:20:12] hint of this here. This is showing you

[1:20:14] the distribution of them, the top

[1:20:18] Section shows the amounts and

[1:20:21] frequency of cost decreases, the

[1:20:23] credits and descopes. The middle

[1:20:25] Section shows the no-cost ones, no

[1:20:27] dollar cost, but changes to the term

[1:20:29] still run as a change order and the

[1:20:31] bottom Section shows the cost

[1:20:32] increases. You can see there are

[1:20:35] numerous small cost increase change

[1:20:36] order and a handful of very large ones

[1:20:39] at the bottom. Now a very notable

[1:20:42] thing is the TransBay Tube retrofit

[1:20:45] that occurred. As you are well-aware

[1:20:47] this was a very long-term project and

[1:20:49] in our audit period, that project was

[1:20:51] nearing its end. There was a very

[1:20:55] significant 28.3 million credit that

[1:20:57] occurred in this, this was money that

[1:20:59] BART identified and requested back from

[1:21:01] the vendors, and was credited back in a

[1:21:03] change order that came back to BART.

[1:21:05] On the next slide, if we exclude that

[1:21:08] amount, because this is a large

[1:21:14] project not captured in the full audit finding.

[1:21:15] If you take that out because a

[1:21:18] lot of change orders that were costly

[1:21:21] occurred much earlier for this project,

[1:21:23] from it we see nearly 50% increase in

[1:21:26] the total net amount of change orders.

[1:21:30] So it's just worth noting that when you

[1:21:31] look at all of these numbers we have

[1:21:33] the tail-end of very large project with

[1:21:36] a very large credit, and it skews it.

[1:21:39] So we showed it so you can try and see

[1:21:41] what might be a more normal

[1:21:43] circumstance. There may never been a

[1:21:45] single year where everything is normal.

[1:21:47] Is it will always be caveated a little

[1:21:50] bit. And when I mention variability,

[1:21:53] this chart shows some of the projects

[1:21:55] that we looked at in-depth, and you can

[1:21:58] see that there's the contract amount,

[1:22:00] the net change orders. This is the

[1:22:01] cost and the money coming back, and

[1:22:03] then the percentage of the contract

[1:22:05] that these change the orders

[1:22:06] represented. If we look at the El

[1:22:09] Cerrito Del Norte modernization

[1:22:10] project, you can see that 49% of the

[1:22:15] costs was due to change orders. Above

[1:22:18] and beyond the contract amount. As you

[1:22:22] go down, TransBay Tube retrofit, almost

[1:22:25] 30% then you get down to some smaller

[1:22:27] cases. Well, you have the Hayward

[1:22:30] Maintenance Complex phase 2, very small

[1:22:31] amount of net change orders because of

[1:22:33] some credits there. And then you have

[1:22:36] other cases, such as tradition power

[1:22:39] sub stations with a cost much lower

[1:22:42] than anticipated due to credits and

[1:22:44] change the orders. When we talk about

[1:22:45] some of the data systems and

[1:22:47] information challenges that BART has

[1:22:49] with tracking change orders, what it

[1:22:54] comes down to each project based on

[1:22:56] information you can manual calculate

[1:22:57] this by digging through a lot of

[1:22:59] information. What is very difficult,

[1:23:01] and I'm cutting ahead here a little

[1:23:02] bit, is to look at this globally. It's

[1:23:05] very difficult for Staff to pull this

[1:23:07] information together and say well this

[1:23:09] is what is happening and track it in

[1:23:11] realtime, because each project has a

[1:23:14] lot of circumstantial unique

[1:23:15] information compiled on how it's

[1:23:17] architected in information system and

[1:23:21] when you look at small percentage

[1:23:24] BARTwide and each project may have a

[1:23:26] very different story depending on what

[1:23:28] happened with each project. So it's

[1:23:40] circumstantial. A lot of this stems

[1:23:42] from the Office of Infrastructure

[1:23:45] Delivery being tasked with

[1:23:47] simultaneously enforcing contract

[1:23:49] terms, and also maintaining project

[1:23:50] progress. So you can imagine this

[1:23:52] creates some amount of tension for a

[1:23:55] Project Manager to be both

[1:23:58] simultaneously pushing a project

[1:23:59] forward quickly and with the highest

[1:24:01] quality, but at the same time in charge

[1:24:03] of policing and enforcing those

[1:24:06] vendors, and ensuring contract

[1:24:09] compliance. Now speaking with the

[1:24:11] Office of Infrastructure Delivery they

[1:24:12] report a lot of internal practices to

[1:24:15] balance this within their own group.

[1:24:20] But separating it out is the real

[1:24:21] opportunity so that they can focus on

[1:24:23] project delivery and can be a stronger

[1:24:27] emphasis on separate monitoring. On

[1:24:30] this next slide you can see that a lot

[1:24:33] of different functions within BART are

[1:24:34] involved in looking at change orders.

[1:24:37] This is where I earlier mentioned the

[1:24:39] compliance oriented approach comes in.

[1:24:42] All of these functions will review

[1:24:44] change orders and have some role in

[1:24:46] looking at them. They are looking at

[1:24:49] them individually, and it seems to be

[1:24:52] mostly compliant-oriented view. There

[1:24:53] are very few instances where anyone has

[1:24:57] the opportunity, access to all of the

[1:24:58] information to independently look at

[1:25:00] change orders in a systematic

[1:25:03] pattern-driven way to look for fraud,

[1:25:05] waste and abuse. If you look at single

[1:25:08] change order for compliance, it may

[1:25:11] well be heavily scrutinized by these

[1:25:13] individuals and that is quite a

[1:25:15] positive function. There is a limited

[1:25:17] occurrence of anyone stepping back and

[1:25:19] looking at it. Our recommendation is

[1:25:22] for internal Audit Division to take a

[1:25:25] stronger lead in this, talking with

[1:25:27] them, they had already had some of this

[1:25:29] in the works. So I don't know exactly

[1:25:32] where they are today, because this

[1:25:34] audit work occurred a while ago, so I

[1:25:36] don't want to speak too much to their

[1:25:37] current plans, but they had already

[1:25:39] started talking about how to have a

[1:25:42] more active role. One of the reasons

[1:25:44] it's difficult for them to do it, or

[1:25:46] others within BART, is because not

[1:25:49] everyone has access to all of the

[1:25:50] information systems that they need and

[1:25:53] reliant on information from the Office

[1:25:55] of Infrastructure Delivery. So cutting

[1:25:59] into our recommendations giving access

[1:26:01] to the internal Audit Division for

[1:26:03] frankly whoever is charged with this to

[1:26:05] have access to all of the information

[1:26:06] systems to get it in a read only

[1:26:08] fashion and so that they can do this

[1:26:11] monitoring concurrently. We're not

[1:26:13] recommending a new step in the approval

[1:26:16] of each change order. We are

[1:26:20] recommending ongoing concurrent

[1:26:21] monitoring of all of the change order

[1:26:23] activity. So that change orders don't

[1:26:24] have to be delayed by one more review.

[1:26:26] It's already a very lengthily process

[1:26:28] and that could add time to it. We're

[1:26:31] recommending concurrent review, and

[1:26:33] looking at patterns and trends as well

[1:26:35] and having access to the information.

[1:26:38] Getting ahead to finding 2, this is

[1:26:40] where some of the challenges will

[1:26:43] persist for the time being as well,

[1:26:44] even if folks have access to all of the

[1:26:46] information. A lot of the information

[1:26:49] is locked up in systems that don't talk

[1:26:51] to each other. This is common in any

[1:26:54] organization. There are always digital

[1:26:56] systems that end up functioning in

[1:26:58] silos even with the best intentions.

[1:27:00] There are two systems to talk about, as

[1:27:02] you are probably familiar PeopleSoft is

[1:27:05] the main enterprise system used, but

[1:27:10] WongCMS is a repository used for

[1:27:13] project management information and most

[1:27:15] of the change order details are

[1:27:17] stored there in the documents. The

[1:27:19] way these two systems are designed they

[1:27:22] use different field names. There's as

[1:27:26] I mentioned credits, allowances,

[1:27:28] options. Not all of those are properly

[1:27:30] differentiated in these two systems,,

[1:27:32] nor aligned with each other. So you

[1:27:34] could imagine if you needed to

[1:27:37] understand overall project spending,

[1:27:38] you would think oh, I could get that

[1:27:40] information from PeopleSoft very

[1:27:41] easily. And then you think oh, well

[1:27:43] let see how many of these are change

[1:27:45] orders? That is not a possible

[1:27:48] function today. So what needs to

[1:27:49] happen, if you have a question about

[1:27:51] change orders is someone will need to

[1:27:53] manually look at the information and

[1:27:55] compile that from what is in WongCMS.

[1:27:58] So there's an opportunity here, because

[1:28:00] it's our understanding that WongCMS is

[1:28:03] in the process of an upgrade

[1:28:08] replacement, to when that is replaced

[1:28:10] to make them integrated and unify the

[1:28:12] field and improve governance. So our

[1:28:15] recommendations are centered around the

[1:28:16] center to do that. We have a third

[1:28:19] recommendation here, which may have

[1:28:21] already been considered, but because so

[1:28:23] much of this information is tied up in

[1:28:27] WongCMS if and when it's replaced that

[1:28:33] historic information is critical with

[1:28:34] the long length of projects it would be

[1:28:36] a major loss not to have access to

[1:28:41] that. The third finding talks again

[1:28:43] about some inconsistent records. The

[1:28:51] Office of Civil Rights sanctioned small

[1:28:57] business participation programs when we

[1:28:59] did our sampling of 41 change orders in

[1:29:02] this case, the Office of Civil Rights

[1:29:04] could probably only eight of them from

[1:29:05] their own records and 33 they needed to

[1:29:08] request from project teams. Meaning

[1:29:09] that while they were charged with

[1:29:12] looking at these historically, they had

[1:29:14] no access to them. It's our

[1:29:16] understanding that a major problem was

[1:29:18] simply just not getting emailed when

[1:29:20] the change orders happened. Our

[1:29:22] proposal is simple, update standard

[1:29:25] operating procedures and give the

[1:29:26] Office of Civil Rights access to this

[1:29:29] information in a read-only capacity, so

[1:29:30] they don't have to ask for it. It will

[1:29:34] be reduce friction and hopefully save

[1:29:37] everybody time and give them an

[1:29:38] opportunity to perform their

[1:29:40] functions better. And finally our

[1:29:42] fourth finding is about improving

[1:29:43] opportunities in Planning and design.

[1:29:46] Of our samples about 5% of them

[1:29:48] appeared to have avoidable errors. I

[1:29:50] have to caveat this. I'm not an

[1:29:52] engineer. So I do not like

[1:29:56] Monday-morning quarterbacking here.

[1:29:57] When we looked at a few of them, cases

[1:30:03] for example, known 50-year-old conduit

[1:30:06] that was underground, just a simple

[1:30:09] Google search will tell you 50 years is

[1:30:13] past its useful life. When it was dug

[1:30:18] up, oh, yes, the conduit is corroded

[1:30:20] and needed to be replaced. And

[1:30:22] Planning for these types of things

[1:30:24] could save both time and money.

[1:30:28] Jumping back here, during the audit

[1:30:30] period about $2.7 million of what

[1:30:32] appeared to be avoidable costs. Best

[1:30:37] practices suggest that doing better

[1:30:39] Planning, even though there's a cost

[1:30:42] to do subsurface investigations and

[1:30:44] understand what is underground where

[1:30:46] you finalize your plans, tends to have

[1:30:49] a 4:1 return on investment. So even

[1:30:51] though there would be an increased cost

[1:30:54] with more subsurface investigations

[1:30:55] doing so would have a savings over the

[1:30:58] long-term. It's our understanding that

[1:30:59] this is something that the Office of

[1:31:02] Infrastructure Delivery was already

[1:31:04] thinking about. It's very logical and

[1:31:05] again, not as an engineer myself, I

[1:31:08] feel silly even mentioning it because

[1:31:10] I'm sure all of the professionals have

[1:31:12] already been thinking heavily about

[1:31:16] this, but reinforces the opportunity

[1:31:17] for more Planning and investment

[1:31:18] upfront to save time and money later.

[1:31:25] And so that is the end of my

[1:31:27] presentation. I will open up to any

[1:31:29] questions that we might be able to

[1:31:32] answer.

[1:31:33] >> Thank you. I appreciate the

[1:31:36] presentation. Do we have any questions

[1:31:37] from the Board? Director Foley?

[1:31:43] >> Thank you, President Hernandez.

[1:31:44] Thank you for the presentation. I come

[1:31:48] away with more questions than answers.

[1:31:51] So I will ask a few. First off, how

[1:31:55] does this report intersect with the

[1:31:59] Bond Oversight Committee? Where is

[1:32:01] this, you know, really directed to

[1:32:04] what they do and how they look at

[1:32:07] capital spending?

[1:32:08] >> We didn't do this audit with this

[1:32:11] perspective. It wasn't part of the

[1:32:12] scope.

[1:32:14] >> Is this something we will share

[1:32:15] with them?

[1:32:17] >> We certainly can, yeah.

[1:32:18] >> I would think as the overseers of

[1:32:22] our capital spending, that they would

[1:32:25] want to understand this. So on a very

[1:32:28] high-level we look at the change order

[1:32:30] amounts compared to the contract

[1:32:34] amount. When we're looking at the root

[1:32:35] cause of change order need? In other

[1:32:37] words, is this an -- error -- I don't

[1:32:40] want to say error, but is there a

[1:32:43] finding on our part as we go through

[1:32:45] construction? Is this a contractor

[1:32:47] issue? Because I would think that not

[1:32:49] all change orders are created equal.

[1:32:52] So how do we determine ones that are

[1:32:58] necessary, from ones preventable?

[1:32:59] >> I think I will let Julian answer

[1:33:04] that one because he is closer to the

[1:33:05] work.

[1:33:06] >> Thank you, Director. It's

[1:33:07] difficult to say in some cases. This is

[1:33:10] a bit of a deflection. I apologize,

[1:33:13] it's getting the information better so

[1:33:14] that that can be answered more often.

[1:33:17] Because it's difficult to know, in all cases.

[1:33:21] >> It sounds like in cases where we

[1:33:23] get a credit, we're actually reducing

[1:33:26] the scope of work originally bid for?

[1:33:28] >> Correct.

[1:33:29] >> So we're getting less bang for the

[1:33:31] buck, if you will, because of the

[1:33:34] change order eating away at what our

[1:33:37] approve dollar amount was, is that fair?

[1:33:39] >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure if what

[1:33:42] you mean by bang for the buck? When

[1:33:44] they reduce something there could be so

[1:33:46] much different reasons why they do it.

[1:33:47] So it's kind of like -- I hate -- like

[1:33:51] what Julian was saying deflecting a

[1:33:53] little bit. If we look at just the TBT

[1:33:57] descope, which was over $30 million was

[1:34:02] quite significant. The question what

[1:34:05] did they remove and Julian reviewed

[1:34:08] those. I don't know off the top of my

[1:34:10] head, but it depends upon did we really

[1:34:12] need that to begin with or some

[1:34:14] logistically reason it had to come out?

[1:34:16] So it just really depends. Yes, we're

[1:34:19] not getting exactly what we set out to

[1:34:26] do initially when we descope?

[1:34:28] >> So we did a scope of work with

[1:34:30] these credits it sounds like that scope

[1:34:33] is reduced.

[1:34:34] >> Yes.

[1:34:35] >> That we're actually not getting

[1:34:36] what we approved as a Board.

[1:34:37] >> Yes.

[1:34:39] >> Okay.

[1:34:40] >> Okay.

[1:34:41] >> What I would like to see going

[1:34:45] forward is as we approve contracts here

[1:34:48] at the Board, if we can have some sort

[1:34:52] of running list of you approved a

[1:34:55] project for X amount of dollars, here's

[1:35:00] the change order amounts through the

[1:35:01] life of the contract. For me it would

[1:35:03] just be things that we have approved at

[1:35:06] this level, probably want to see a

[1:35:08] bigger picture. I would be interested

[1:35:10] to see how what we approved actually

[1:35:13] changes during the life of the

[1:35:15] contract, and how the scope has changed

[1:35:17] during the life of the contract. So

[1:35:19] that would be -- not necessarily to the

[1:35:25] IG's office, but the GM's office. I

[1:35:27] think that would be helpful as a Board

[1:35:28] Member.

[1:35:29] >> I think it's an excellent

[1:35:32] recommendation. And one of the things

[1:35:34] that Julian touched on a little bit,

[1:35:36] but for me, I'm always thinking of the

[1:35:40] worst case fraud scenario is always at

[1:35:42] the back of my head. When I see really

[1:35:46] big descopes I know from my experience

[1:35:47] and training that is sometimes a way

[1:35:51] that that -- like associated with

[1:35:54] collusion, or some sort of scheme,

[1:35:57] where a contractor might bid on

[1:35:58] something and intentionally bid it low,

[1:36:00] because they know in advance it's going

[1:36:02] to come out anyway and they can win the

[1:36:04] Ward. award. That is why I worry

[1:36:08] about that and why it's important that

[1:36:09] you see all of the information to ask

[1:36:13] probing questions like why was there

[1:36:16] such a descope and the other bid items?

[1:36:21] Were they many, many higher than the

[1:36:23] contract who won the award? Not that

[1:36:26] it's fraud, but it's an indicator of

[1:36:30] potential fraud. I highly agree with

[1:36:32] that, and I think it's an excellent

[1:36:33] recommendation.

[1:36:34] >> Thank you.

[1:36:35] >> Good morning, Directors. Michael

[1:36:37] Jones, Deputy General Manager and to

[1:36:40] jump in and I'm catching myself cold,

[1:36:44] so don't hold me to any of the

[1:36:47] information, Director Foley. The

[1:36:48] TransBay Tube was for 100-year storm

[1:36:51] design and designed several years ago

[1:36:53] and when we actually started doing the

[1:36:56] work we determined that we didn't need

[1:36:58] as much scope as we did, and we brought

[1:37:01] that back to the Board and

[1:37:03] transparently reported that.

[1:37:05] >> It did go back in front of the

[1:37:06] Board.

[1:37:07] >> So I don't anyone to say there's a

[1:37:12] $28 million descope and there's

[1:37:15] collusion, because it was 100%

[1:37:17] transparent.

[1:37:18] >> I was just wondering from the pure

[1:37:23] numbers point, how the dollar amounts

[1:37:25] change and the scope changes through

[1:37:27] the life of contract ? that is all I

[1:37:29] have. Thank you.

[1:37:30] >> Thank you. Director Ames.

[1:37:31] >> I do remember that tunnel

[1:37:34] discussion, and I was concerned about

[1:37:38] the descope. Because I wasn't sure if

[1:37:41] the seismic performance would be equal

[1:37:42] to what we planned for. So I wanted to

[1:37:45] get a white paper on that. But we

[1:37:49] never got confirmation. So I do agree

[1:37:51] that descoping is a concern. I would

[1:37:56] like to see BART or engineering Staff

[1:37:58] to come up with a way, if they do think

[1:38:01] there's more to be done with the price,

[1:38:05] maybe we can consider descoping at the

[1:38:10] award of contract? I have only done

[1:38:14] that one in my career, but if you know

[1:38:17] you don't have enough funding you have

[1:38:20] alternative items to descope or maybe

[1:38:24] working with the contractor to descope

[1:38:27] or before the contract comes to the

[1:38:29] Board, which is difficult, because you

[1:38:30] are negotiating with the contractor

[1:38:32] after the bid came in. You know

[1:38:34] upfront what would be potentially

[1:38:36] removed, given the constraints on the

[1:38:38] budget. And then the other issue which

[1:38:42] I do appreciate is maybe you could go

[1:38:43] to that slide where it's got all the

[1:38:45] check marks that shows you have got

[1:38:49] some review of other Departments. I

[1:38:51] guess we have this audit -- sorry,

[1:38:55] let's see. The internal Audit Division

[1:38:57] would potentially look at change

[1:39:00] orders, I guess. Is that what we're

[1:39:03] suggesting here?

[1:39:05] Overview of the change orders?

[1:39:07] >> Correct, they are currently

[1:39:09] reviewing aspects of change orders

[1:39:11] especially from an individual change

[1:39:12] order by change order signoff approach.

[1:39:16] But giving them the clear policy --

[1:39:19] written policy direction to review

[1:39:22] change orders at-large, and looking at

[1:39:25] all change orders, and doing that

[1:39:26] concurrently, because there's a risk to

[1:39:29] the review process that makes the

[1:39:33] review process longer and doing it

[1:39:36] simultaneously.

[1:39:37] >> I do like this and when I do change

[1:39:41] orders I always had oversight. Some

[1:39:43] would get cherry-picked because there

[1:39:46] was concerns with the change order and

[1:39:48] they would ask me questions if it was

[1:39:50] compliant with the project? But it was

[1:39:51] good to have that oversight. There was

[1:39:53] a little bit of a delay, but it wasn't

[1:39:55] like every change order was audited.

[1:39:57] But they did look at the change orders

[1:40:02] for red-flags and the Procurement

[1:40:04] Department also has a good check on the

[1:40:07] funding that is being used. And then

[1:40:09] amount of change orders being used.

[1:40:10] Because there's a lot of confusion, who

[1:40:12] is managing the project? They might

[1:40:15] have their own spreadsheet of their

[1:40:18] accounting. But then the Procurement

[1:40:20] Department doesn't have this. So it's

[1:40:21] really great to see that we would -- we

[1:40:24] could consider having maybe the

[1:40:26] procurement or whoever is looking at

[1:40:28] the financing of the contract also that

[1:40:32] would be a different Department. Then

[1:40:33] you have this internal Audit Division.

[1:40:35] So I think we should have those two

[1:40:38] Departments looking at change orders in

[1:40:42] a systematic way, so we're not leaving

[1:40:45] up to the Project Managers to control

[1:40:49] everything. Basically they are

[1:40:52] controlling the change order process

[1:40:53] and the budget. So there's a need for

[1:40:55] oversight. So I'm hopeful Staff comes

[1:41:03] back to elaborate on the improvements

[1:41:04] and get more consistent software, so

[1:41:07] everything is documented in one place,

[1:41:08] and people can understand -- you don't

[1:41:10] have to have your own private file to

[1:41:12] document what is going on with the

[1:41:16] project. Thank you.

[1:41:20] >> All right, VP Wright.

[1:41:22] >> Thank you. Thank you for the

[1:41:25] presentation as always I appreciate the

[1:41:27] rigor of your oversight and the work

[1:41:28] that goes into these audits. We

[1:41:31] already touched on this in Committee,

[1:41:33] so I won't get into all of that, but I

[1:41:35] thought it might be helpful if BART's

[1:41:39] management wants to share anything

[1:41:41] about your responses to the findings

[1:41:43] and recommendation or actions that have

[1:41:45] been undertaken since the audit came

[1:41:47] out?

[1:41:48] >> Good morning, Director Wright. Not

[1:41:49] other than we have accepted all of the

[1:41:53] recommendations and internal auditing

[1:41:54] Staff is working to implement

[1:41:58] >> Excellent, thank you.

[1:42:02] >> Director Raburn.

[1:42:04] >> Thank you, President Hernandez.

[1:42:07] And thank you, Claudette for pursuing

[1:42:12] the audit of our change orders. Thank

[1:42:15] you, Julian for your presentation. I

[1:42:19] have two questions. The first revolves

[1:42:23] around contingencies. And you note

[1:42:27] that contingencies are allowances that

[1:42:30] are built in. And my experience has

[1:42:35] been that contingencies get swept up at

[1:42:39] the conclusion of the project, and

[1:42:46] they're gone, instead of maybe being

[1:42:49] saved or reallocated to a worthy

[1:42:52] project. And so my question is really

[1:42:56] around did you discover any

[1:42:59] contingencies that weren't swept up and

[1:43:03] awarded at the conclusion of a project?

[1:43:07] >> That is a good question, and I have

[1:43:10] to it got a little out of scope. We

[1:43:12] spent a lot of time looking and

[1:43:17] tracking down change order information

[1:43:18] that next level of contingencies which

[1:43:23] would be have a valid place to look,

[1:43:26] change orders was challenging enough to

[1:43:27] get the information together.

[1:43:29] >> Let me ask in your experience is

[1:43:35] there a procedural mechanism for

[1:43:39] example, the Office of Infrastructure

[1:43:43] Delivery to reallocate contingency

[1:43:47] funds?

[1:43:48] >> I think that would be a good

[1:43:50] suggestion. I do not know how often

[1:43:51] that is happening in these cases. But

[1:43:55] using those contingency fund and not

[1:43:56] treating them as a certainty, I think,

[1:43:58] would be the baseline expectation for

[1:44:01] practices in this case.

[1:44:02] >> Thank you. I'm seeing Sylvia Lamb,

[1:44:06] the AGM of Our Office of Infrastructure

[1:44:09] Delivery nod her head in agreement.

[1:44:13] Thank you. And the other question I

[1:44:16] have is really regarding the Board's

[1:44:21] role. And the Board really only hears

[1:44:26] about change orders sort of at the end

[1:44:29] of the tailpipe. We're not part and

[1:44:33] parcel part of that routine monitoring

[1:44:37] that you recommend. And I do recall

[1:44:41] when I first joined the Board I was

[1:44:44] involved in a major project, and there

[1:44:49] was involvement of Board Members on

[1:44:52] Committee of oversight and we tracked

[1:44:55] that project from inception to delivery.

[1:45:00] I haven't seen such an effort since.

[1:45:03] But by the way, the contingency on

[1:45:06] that project was swept up at the end

[1:45:11] without any alternative being put forth

[1:45:15] to the Board. So thank you for your

[1:45:18] report. And I'm inclined to agree that

[1:45:22] an internal Audit Division should

[1:45:26] routinely monitor all of our projects,

[1:45:28] and maybe with some Board involvement.

[1:45:33] >> All right, Director Ghosh.

[1:45:38] >> Yes, thank you. Thank you first of

[1:45:44] all, for such an amazing audit. I

[1:45:47] learned so much from reading it about

[1:45:51] how BART works. And I had a chance to

[1:45:53] chat with Sylvia, and I think all of us

[1:45:58] appreciate us looking out for BART and

[1:46:02] public dollar together, which is how I

[1:46:04] see the purpose of this audit. I think

[1:46:07] all of the recommendations are stellar,

[1:46:09] and I'm glad to hear that they have

[1:46:11] been accepted. I did have a question

[1:46:12] about is there a timeline for

[1:46:15] implementation of those

[1:46:18] recommendations?

[1:46:21] I'm looking at -- yes.

[1:46:24] >> Let me ask Dennis Markham, who is

[1:46:27] much closer than I am, to step up to

[1:46:33] the podium. Mr. Markham.

[1:46:39] >> Good morning, Dennis Markham,

[1:46:43] Director of Performance and audit. All

[1:46:45] of the recommendations that we

[1:46:47] estimated would be implemented either

[1:46:49] June or July of this year. And so far

[1:46:53] we're on-track of doing all of those,

[1:46:55] and getting them in on-time.

[1:46:58] >> That is great. Could we get a

[1:47:00] little note from you when they're done?

[1:47:05] We would appreciate it.

[1:47:06] >> Happy to follow-up.

[1:47:08] >> Thank you. I also had the same

[1:47:12] question about contingency and wanted

[1:47:14] to know if -- if there was a list of

[1:47:19] projects that were either flagged where

[1:47:21] the change orders took it over budget,

[1:47:24] or were they always, you know, within

[1:47:26] the budget and using up the

[1:47:29] contingency? I feel like I still don't

[1:47:31] have that picture, but I can also see

[1:47:33] that record keeping in itself is a huge

[1:47:36] challenge. So I'm hoping that we can

[1:47:38] ask and get that information more

[1:47:41] easily, so everybody can benefit from

[1:47:46] it. And it's challenging, I think,

[1:47:48] with an old system like ours to even

[1:47:50] know what is under the ground every

[1:47:53] time. So of course, we expect, you

[1:47:56] know, I don't know what -- when I did

[1:48:00] my house, it's like 100-year-old house,

[1:48:05] 130-year-old now. There's surprises

[1:48:06] all the time and that is why we have

[1:48:08] contingencies. So we have to just

[1:48:09] accept that is part of how we do work

[1:48:13] on our systems. And I agree that you

[1:48:16] know, we can look at it ahead of time,

[1:48:18] but that might mean the bid would go

[1:48:22] up. So it's hard. We're all trying to

[1:48:27] game contractors everybody gains the

[1:48:28] system to make sure you profit and get

[1:48:30] the project. So I think good record

[1:48:32] keeping and trends is what we should be

[1:48:34] looking at, even more than project by

[1:48:37] project. And we should do our best to

[1:48:40] make sure that we understand the

[1:48:41] reasons for these change orders and how

[1:48:44] we can leverage the amount of power

[1:48:48] that we have as a big agency that

[1:48:51] spends a lot of money on these to even

[1:48:55] change industry standards. My last

[1:48:57] question, again, I think for

[1:49:01] management, is with descoping, is a

[1:49:05] certain percentage off the overall

[1:49:08] budget at which point it has to go back

[1:49:10] to bid? Because when you are putting

[1:49:12] something out to bid, and you're

[1:49:15] expecting all of these different sort

[1:49:17] of parts of the project, one big part

[1:49:21] goes away and maybe a different

[1:49:23] contractor may have been better at

[1:49:25] providing the different parts?

[1:49:27] Of course the TransBay Tube in the

[1:49:30] grand scheme of things was a small

[1:49:31] amount for the overall amount, but I'm

[1:49:33] curious if we have any best practice,

[1:49:36] or guidance around when it goes back --

[1:49:38] is forced to go back to bid, if there's

[1:49:43] a descoping that comes up in the early

[1:49:45] days, or even later on?

[1:49:48] >> So I will look to my colleague here

[1:49:50] to my right, Jeana, to help me if I

[1:49:53] mess this up. I don't believe we have

[1:49:55] any regulations, any BART or

[1:49:57] procurement regulations that requires

[1:49:58] us to go back and re-bid, if we

[1:50:01] significantly descope a project. I

[1:50:03] don't think that exists.

[1:50:05] >> I can confirm that is generally

[1:50:08] correct, yes.

[1:50:10] >> I guess that is the only thing that

[1:50:12] gives me pause is just to make sure

[1:50:16] that we understand the project, as much

[1:50:20] as possible where there's no

[1:50:23] significant descoping, where going back

[1:50:26] to Director Foley's comment about

[1:50:28] making sure that it never appears as

[1:50:32] collusion of any kind; that you are

[1:50:34] putting forward a certain kind of

[1:50:35] project to bid and the project changes

[1:50:38] substantially, but we're still keeping

[1:50:42] the same contractor. I'm not saying

[1:50:43] that is happening, to be clear. This

[1:50:47] is all proactive trying to make sure

[1:50:51] that -- yeah. Thank you.

[1:50:55] >> Director Li.

[1:50:57] >> Thank you. Just had some general

[1:51:02] comment and one question. First, I

[1:51:04] know that every one of these

[1:51:05] performance audits is a huge amount of

[1:51:07] work not only for the OIG and our

[1:51:10] consultants, but also for the Staff who

[1:51:13] are interviewed, are providing lots of

[1:51:16] information, you know? Engaging in

[1:51:17] back and forth and most importantly, I

[1:51:19] really want to thank BART management

[1:51:22] for accepting all of the

[1:51:23] recommendations and for the work that

[1:51:25] has already begun to implement those

[1:51:28] recommendations. I at the end of the

[1:51:29] very important for the processes to be

[1:51:31] collaborative and to acknowledge every

[1:51:34] single party is singularly focused on

[1:51:35] improving BART. That is what we're

[1:51:36] trying to get to. So that is all good.

[1:51:41] And also, to Claudette, and your

[1:51:45] office, I'm very appreciative of the

[1:51:47] cadence of these performance audits.

[1:51:49] These reports are exactly what we

[1:51:51] envisioned for this office to be

[1:51:52] focused on when we were going through

[1:51:54] the hiring process what we had said we

[1:51:56] wanted our OIG to be focused on. So

[1:52:00] it's a huge amount of work for

[1:52:03] everyone, and we're seeing the results

[1:52:05] that are really informative for us as a

[1:52:09] Board. Second, I think it's really

[1:52:11] important that we're doing these

[1:52:14] performance audits now, when things

[1:52:17] aren't breaking down. I would say sort

[1:52:19] of like trying to drink a lot of water

[1:52:22] when you are already dehydrated or

[1:52:25] trying to go to marriage counseling

[1:52:28] when somebody is I want a divorce.

[1:52:30] Sort of hard to fix things at that

[1:52:32] point. So I want to be clear that the

[1:52:34] top line on slide 7 is something that I

[1:52:37] hope BART management and Sylvia and

[1:52:39] Shane's teams are particularly proud of

[1:52:41] that. We know that change orders are

[1:52:44] in -- a necessary reality of major

[1:52:47] capital projects, whether it's CBTC or

[1:52:49] our power cable replacement projects,

[1:52:51] but on the whole, change orders are

[1:52:54] minimal. The cost increases are small,

[1:52:56] and some of these change orders are

[1:53:00] actually creating project savings.

[1:53:01] Yes, the more detailed look is really

[1:53:04] helpful to understand where there are

[1:53:06] process recommendations and where there

[1:53:07] are much larger variances specific

[1:53:15] projects so it prevents us from getting

[1:53:16] to a bad place and 15 years when

[1:53:21] perhaps we're not here anymore that we

[1:53:25] have a successful transit system.

[1:53:27] Maybe it's not this slide. It is the

[1:53:32] big chart, yes, this one. Like, this

[1:53:35] is huge. This is a slide I want to

[1:53:37] share with a lot of folks because I

[1:53:40] think that from the general public,

[1:53:43] especially, you know, there are, in

[1:53:45] fact, some BART haters out there, that

[1:53:48] sort of like change orders is

[1:53:51] government bloat, you know? These

[1:53:53] major capital projects that are wasting

[1:53:55] all of these taxpayer dollars, and

[1:53:57] there's no accountability. There's lot

[1:54:00] of ram for improvement and we accepted

[1:54:03] those recommendations and those will

[1:54:04] be underway, but on the whole, BART has

[1:54:11] a strong grasp on project cost and

[1:54:13] using change orders as part of project

[1:54:15] reality and I think is a really

[1:54:17] important thing for us to acknowledge

[1:54:19] here. The only question I have is sort

[1:54:21] of a process one for management and

[1:54:23] sort of going off of what Director

[1:54:25] Ghosh had asked. I know I requested

[1:54:28] this recently with the overtime audit

[1:54:30] as well. But I would really like for

[1:54:32] there to be some sort of follow-up

[1:54:35] particularly with the implementation of

[1:54:36] the recommendations being able to

[1:54:38] track, you know, what is already been

[1:54:42] implemented? What is in the works?

[1:54:43] What might just take a little bit of

[1:54:46] time? What needs to be a larger

[1:54:49] conversation? So for management, is

[1:54:52] this a plan how you report-back,

[1:54:54] whether to the full Board or Audit

[1:54:57] Committee, via email, memo or otherwise?

[1:54:59] >> Director Li, we provide the OIG

[1:55:03] with quarterly updates, I believe, of

[1:55:04] our progress on every one. So I'm sure

[1:55:07] she can share in a with the BART Board

[1:55:10] on every audit, every recommendation we

[1:55:11] have Staff people that provide that to

[1:55:13] them on a quarterly basis.

[1:55:15] >> That is excellent. I wasn't aware.

[1:55:17] Claudette, is that possible?

[1:55:20] >> Yes, as Deputy General Manager

[1:55:27] said, we present bi-annually now, but

[1:55:29] follow-up really to find the status of

[1:55:31] recommendations are. One of the things

[1:55:32] that I wanted to point out, I have been

[1:55:35] hearing comments not only during this

[1:55:36] presentation, but other presentations

[1:55:38] about wanting information about where

[1:55:41] the status of recommendations are. So

[1:55:43] we're doing a deep-dive look at the

[1:55:45] status of our recommendations and not

[1:55:47] just looking at ones that are still

[1:55:49] unimplemented to see the progress or

[1:55:50] some way to assist to find ways to get

[1:55:52] them across the finish line? But also,

[1:55:55] to make sure things didn't become

[1:55:58] unimplemented, which is something we

[1:56:00] see from time to time. We are, I

[1:56:02] think, right in the middle of betting

[1:56:04] that done and hope to bring that to you

[1:56:06] all and have deeper discussions where

[1:56:08] things stand and make sure that you

[1:56:10] have that information. As always, our

[1:56:12] dashboard on our website provides

[1:56:13] information on the status -- I got the

[1:56:15] thumb's up.

[1:56:19] >> Sorry. Okay. That is really

[1:56:22] helpful, because reports are great.

[1:56:24] But best reports are ones that are

[1:56:27] leading to effective and helpful

[1:56:29] changes, not ineffective and unhelpful

[1:56:32] ones. Those are my comments. Thank

[1:56:33] you so much.

[1:56:34] >> Thank you. Director Flores.

[1:56:37] >> Thank you all for the presentation.

[1:56:40] And just want to second a lot of

[1:56:43] comments from previous Directors. So I

[1:56:45] will keep my remarks short. I

[1:56:47] definitely want to highlight that I

[1:56:50] agree with follow-up on different audit

[1:56:51] reports just to see where the

[1:56:53] implementation is. And definitely

[1:56:55] appreciate the OIG's office doing all

[1:56:58] of these audit, but also the Staff is

[1:57:00] that have been involved in making sure

[1:57:04] we're sharing data and information to

[1:57:05] get this information to the Board. I

[1:57:07] definitely also want to highlight the

[1:57:11] ability, making sure that we have the

[1:57:15] integration and standardization with

[1:57:16] our softwares that we can take a deeper

[1:57:18] dive into what is causing change

[1:57:20] orders? Just for the visibility of

[1:57:24] Staff and for the Board. I think for me

[1:57:26] one of the takeaways from this audit:

[1:57:29] One, BART has done a pretty good job

[1:57:33] already, and also accepted

[1:57:34] recommendations and has been

[1:57:36] identifying ways to make those

[1:57:38] improvements. So I just want to say

[1:57:39] thank you for all of the work that has

[1:57:41] been going on there and for the

[1:57:43] willingness to accept those

[1:57:45] recommendations, because I know when

[1:57:46] people think about audits sometimes it

[1:57:48] can be -- some people might think of it

[1:57:50] as a scary thing. People might get in

[1:57:52] trouble, or you know, you know -- you

[1:57:55] pulled back behind the curtain, and

[1:57:57] some people might be afraid of what is

[1:57:59] behind it, but what I'm seeing is a

[1:58:04] good, good numbers, good stats and

[1:58:06] trends. Room for improvement,

[1:58:09] definitely. But things that we can fix

[1:58:11] before we get to that dehydration

[1:58:15] stage. So thank you all so much and

[1:58:16] look forward to seeing those updates.

[1:58:22] >> Not seeing any other Directors with

[1:58:24] any more questions

[1:58:25] I do have a quick question with regards

[1:58:28] is this the first audit change order

[1:58:30] audit you have brought forward to the

[1:58:31] Board?

[1:58:32] >> Yes.

[1:58:33] >> So moving forward, are you going to

[1:58:35] do this on an annual basis?

[1:58:38] >> No. That would be too much of a

[1:58:40] lift for us to be able to do that. I

[1:58:42] think though with the work that the

[1:58:45] internal audit may be doing maybe

[1:58:47] reports, but don't want to speak for

[1:58:49] the General Manager on that. These

[1:58:51] audits take a tremendous amount of time

[1:58:52] and energy and we have a lot of things

[1:58:55] on our audit plan that we need to get

[1:58:56] through.

[1:58:59] >> Okay. Thank you. And maybe we'll

[1:59:02] have further conversation moving

[1:59:03] forward as we get some more information

[1:59:06] with regards to whether it's this audit

[1:59:08] or other audits in the future. Thank

[1:59:09] you for your time. I will let our Mag

[1:59:13] move forward and she will call any

[1:59:15] public comment that is in the public,

[1:59:19] or online.

[1:59:21] >> Okay. Glen Overton, come to the

[1:59:23] podium, please.

[1:59:46] >> Every once in a while you have to

[1:59:49] dust off your books and keep

[1:59:50] everything in line there. Sorry, Madam

[1:59:57] President, Mr. General Manager and Staff

[2:00:03] , when you look at the IG, take a

[2:00:15] picture of your own body. The IG is

[2:00:24] like a liver, and a liver accounts in

[2:00:29] realtime. You got up this morning,

[2:00:32] you're happy, because of your liver.

[2:00:36] You go around saying thanks to your

[2:00:39] liver, an IG is a friend of the people,

[2:00:50] and gets value for our tax dollars

[2:00:55] every cent. The Board of Directors,

[2:01:04] which is your brain, can vouch for that

[2:01:10] in realtime. Integrated, in realtime.

[2:01:17] It doesn't ask for a budget, it's

[2:01:24] there. :again, the IG is a friend of

[2:01:29] the people. And maybe the IG needs to

[2:01:36] integrate with the AI. Thank you.

[2:01:42] >> Okay we have two online speakers.

[2:01:45] The first is Aleta Dupree. Aleta,

[2:01:48] please, go ahead.

[2:01:50] >> Thanks again, President Melissa

[2:01:53] Hernandez and Members. Aleta Dupree,

[2:01:54] for the record, she and her with team

[2:02:01] folds. Very informative report. I do

[2:02:03] have some issue with language, when I

[2:02:06] go into finding 1. I see some

[2:02:09] sentences here, such as OID effectively

[2:02:12] operates without meaningful check on

[2:02:16] decisions in these areas. I'm really

[2:02:19] concerned about how we're framing some

[2:02:22] of this language. I don't want

[2:02:28] anything that OIG does to be

[2:02:31] adversarial. I know if I was running a

[2:02:32] Department and somebody said that to

[2:02:34] me, I would be really offended. I know

[2:02:36] people who work for OID, they're good

[2:02:39] people. I trust them, and I would be

[2:02:41] honored to eat lunch with them every

[2:02:44] day, any day. So how can we make sure

[2:02:46] that we frame any of this language in a

[2:02:50] way that doesn't imply adversary, I

[2:03:02] want to be clear, change orders are a

[2:03:04] fact of life. It happens in my house

[2:03:06] and sometimes I have to pivot when I'm

[2:03:09] cooking, I'm going to use more

[2:03:13] ingredients, it's going to cost me more

[2:03:16] money, yes. One doesn't know what a

[2:03:18] day will bring forth. We can mitigate

[2:03:21] risk. I'm not an expert on this, but I

[2:03:24] have 55 years' of using the New York

[2:03:25] City subway and I think that gives me

[2:03:27] some leg to stand on. So there's a lot

[2:03:31] going on. And I still am expecting a

[2:03:35] nexus, how does this affect me, the

[2:03:39] ordinary rider, who tap my Clipper card

[2:03:41] and gets on the train? I ask that this

[2:03:44] work not be about painting targets on

[2:03:47] people's backs, but instead reflecting

[2:03:48] the idea that BART is the People's

[2:03:52] system. Thank you.

[2:03:53] >> The next speaker is Barney Smits.

[2:03:58] Barney, please unmute yourself.

[2:03:59] >> Thank you. My name is Barney

[2:04:01] Smits. I'm a licensed professional

[2:04:03] engineer with over 25 years' experience

[2:04:05] as a BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety

[2:04:09] expert. I don't suppose any of you are

[2:04:10] aware of the fact that I received Chief

[2:04:13] Engineer's award for putting together

[2:04:15] an RE training class and teaching 50

[2:04:18] BART engineers about contract

[2:04:19] management and RE work at BART. I

[2:04:24] suppose that is important because I

[2:04:25] could give the Board a class, if they

[2:04:27] wanted on contracts and change

[2:04:32] orders. Moving along, the most

[2:04:33] important thing is that the IG has put

[2:04:35] together a report. And it comes down

[2:04:37] to is are all of these reports that the

[2:04:41] IG is presenting, are they being

[2:04:43] accepted by the Board? And if so, is

[2:04:47] the Board actually going to implement

[2:04:50] the recommendations that the IG is

[2:04:54] recommending? So I think the IG's

[2:04:57] recommendations update is important,

[2:04:59] and I think a periodic, or quarterly

[2:05:03] review of whether or not those

[2:05:06] recommendations are being followed by

[2:05:07] management and Staff is absolutely

[2:05:09] critical to making sure that the public

[2:05:11] is getting what it needs. Thank you.

[2:05:21] >> That was last public comment or

[2:05:22] this item.

[2:05:23] >> Thank you.

[2:05:25] Not seeing any other public comment,

[2:05:26] not seeing any other questions from the

[2:05:29] Board on item 5, we'll move on to Item

[2:05:34] No. 6 for public comment.

[2:05:38] >> We do not have any public comments

[2:05:40] -- oh, we do, just one popped up.

[2:05:45] Aleta Dupree, Aleta, please, go ahead.

[2:05:47] >> Thanks again, President Melissa

[2:05:52] Hernandez and Members, Aleta Dupree,

[2:05:53] for the record, she and her with team

[2:05:55] folds. Thank you for calling that out.

[2:05:57] I was afraid I wouldn't speak

[2:06:02] today, but I appreciate it. I wrote

[2:06:04] you more letters and hope you got to

[2:06:07] read them. I'm sure Bob

[2:06:11] Franklin read them. I talked about a

[2:06:12] number of different things and I frame

[2:06:14] the thing that I say to you in your

[2:06:19] experiences. Yes, I wish I had a part

[2:06:21] in bringing the soul train to New York

[2:06:23] City. I probably would have go to

[2:06:25] trainings all the time if it was in New

[2:06:31] York City and I think I would have

[2:06:33] enjoyed more with images of the City.

[2:06:35] How do we build a better BART? I try

[2:06:39] to share with you from experience as

[2:06:44] opposed to academic conjecture and I

[2:06:46] want BART to be something that is not

[2:06:50] just used, but to be enjoyed. I'm

[2:06:52] learning things all the time. You

[2:06:54] know, I don't know if I teach you

[2:06:57] anything that -- I don't know if any of

[2:06:59] you have experience with the soul

[2:07:03] train? Don Cornelius saying it's going

[2:07:04] to be a stone gas, peace, love and

[2:07:09] soul. See, I grew up with some of

[2:07:11] that, sharing with you about life in

[2:07:16] New York, where I come from. I would

[2:07:17] like to be with you in-person more.

[2:07:20] It's hard. I have to travel 600 miles

[2:07:22] to come and see you, and get to spend

[2:07:25] time with you. It's not easy. But how

[2:07:29] do we have the focus on the basics?

[2:07:32] Things that are most important? Don't

[2:07:33] want us to be preoccupied with whether

[2:07:39] people wear skirts on BART, but to be

[2:07:42] preoccupied making sure that we offer

[2:07:45] high-quality transportation service

[2:07:46] that we're known for and most of all

[2:07:49] that everybody should practice the idea

[2:07:50] that BART is the People's system.

[2:07:51] Thank you.

[2:07:53] >> Our next speaker is Chris Finn,

[2:07:55] please come up to the mic.

[2:08:01] >> Good morning. Chris Finn, ATU

[2:08:05] 1555. And I know BART is doing

[2:08:07] everything they can to improve service

[2:08:10] and attract public ridership and

[2:08:15] increase ridership. And especially

[2:08:16] with the connect Bay Area, to put it on

[2:08:22] the ballot in November. The news I

[2:08:25] received yesterday morning about BART

[2:08:27] partnering with Uber, that was probably

[2:08:28] the most amount of feedback I got

[2:08:30] yesterday was concern from different

[2:08:33] community and transit agencies and

[2:08:36] other transit unions about advocating,

[2:08:40] or supporting private transit rather

[2:08:42] than advocating for other AC Transit or

[2:08:44] other measures to cover that last mile.

[2:08:46] So just wanted to put that out there,

[2:08:48] again, I'm new to office. I'm just

[2:08:51] taking office January 1st. I wasn't

[2:08:54] privy to previous communications about

[2:08:55] this topic. But I think it came out as

[2:08:59] -- we might get a little more negative

[2:09:05] feedback on that, to put that out

[2:09:06] there. Thank you.

[2:09:07] >> Thank you, Chris. I would be happy

[2:09:09] to speak you at a later time with

[2:09:11] regards to the Uber. There was a price

[2:09:13] limit on that, correct? What was the

[2:09:14] amount

[2:09:17] $50,000 pilot.

[2:09:18] >> It's a pilot program and we can

[2:09:20] talk offline, happy to do

[2:09:22] there are no additional public comments

[2:09:26] for this item that was the last public

[2:09:27] comment or item 6.

[2:09:29] >> Okay. So Item No. 7 is our

[2:09:33] Engineering and Operations item, and I

[2:09:34] will go ahead and let our Chair Foley

[2:09:39] take over.

[2:09:40] >> Thank you, Madam President.

[2:09:43] Colleagues, we have one information

[2:09:46] item on the E&O agenda today and that

[2:09:48] is the root-cause investigation on the

[2:09:50] update on the recent M-line service

[2:09:55] disruptions. I will turn it over to

[2:09:58] Assistant General Manager Deputy Jones

[2:10:00] and Staff for presentation.

[2:10:02] >> Thank you. Once again, good

[2:10:04] morning Bus Rapid Transit Michael

[2:10:09] Jones, before I turn it over to Sylvia

[2:10:11] and her team to provide context for the

[2:10:14] information that we'll sharing this

[2:10:15] in. First, Staff with support from

[2:10:17] consultant team has conducted a thorough

[2:10:19] and comprehensive analysis of all of

[2:10:21] the service disruptions that our

[2:10:23] customers have experienced since

[2:10:25] August of 2025. I want to definitely

[2:10:29] state Staff has not identified a single

[2:10:31] cause of the disruptions. Said

[2:10:33] differently there's no smoking gun to

[2:10:36] share this morning. However, l

[2:10:40] evaluated all possible causes that

[2:10:42] could have contributed to the events

[2:10:44] and focused on all aspects of rail,

[2:10:46] including traction power system,

[2:10:48] Wayside equipment, as well as rolling

[2:10:50] stock. I'm confident that as we

[2:10:52] present our findings, it will be clear

[2:10:54] that we evaluated everything that we

[2:10:56] possibly could to get to root cause and

[2:11:00] share the mitigation efforts both

[2:11:01] completed and ongoing that should

[2:11:04] proffers confidence to the Board and

[2:11:05] public that we continue to operate a

[2:11:07] safe, reliable and efficient transit

[2:11:09] system. Lastly, I want to address

[2:11:13] several misconceptions that Staff heard

[2:11:14] recently from the public and Members of

[2:11:17] the BART Board. First, there's

[2:11:19] speculation that BART leadership has

[2:11:21] Intel on the single root cause of these

[2:11:23] incidents, but we're not sharing it.

[2:11:26] This is false. Second, there's a

[2:11:29] suggestion that insulators are the

[2:11:30] root cause of service disruptions.

[2:11:33] This is also false. I want to point

[2:11:35] out that blown insulators are a

[2:11:39] common occurrence on electrified

[2:11:40] railroads. It happens and while it can

[2:11:43] cause arcing, it hasn't present a

[2:11:45] dangerous condition to cause alarm. We

[2:11:48] have contacted several transit

[2:11:49] properties around the country and we're

[2:11:51] not unique in experiencing blown

[2:11:53] insulators, and our maintenance

[2:11:54] and mitigation standards are in line

[2:11:57] with those agencies. We'll discuss

[2:11:58] this in more detail during the

[2:12:03] presentation. Third, there's

[2:12:04] speculation this effort did not require

[2:12:07] the effort of external consultant and

[2:12:08] consultants don't have the expertise

[2:12:10] necessary to increase resolving our

[2:12:12] challenges. I can assure you that the

[2:12:14] team we Assembled exceeds the expertise

[2:12:16] of our in-house Staff. They are

[2:12:18] credentialed professionals from global

[2:12:21] firms that have decades of experience

[2:12:26] in tackling the issues we're face.

[2:12:28] With this context, I will turn it over

[2:12:32] to Sylvia Lamb, AGM of infrastructure and

[2:12:34] delivery and to point out that we have

[2:12:37] our entire maintenance and

[2:12:38] infrastructure team in the room and I

[2:12:39] would like them to stand and be

[2:12:43] recognized. So these are the

[2:12:48] individuals that respond to the 1:00

[2:12:50] a.m. calls, 4:00 a.m. calls when we have

[2:12:53] these incidents and they are responding

[2:12:55] with their frontline workforce and

[2:12:58] mitigating these issues. These are the

[2:12:59] people behind the challenges that we're

[2:13:01] having, and I can guaranty that they

[2:13:03] are totally committed to making sure

[2:13:05] that we move this forward in a positive

[2:13:07] direction. So with that, Ms. Lamb, I

[2:13:08] will turn it over to you.

[2:13:11] >> Thank you, Michael. I would like

[2:13:15] to acknowledge also that Parsons was

[2:13:18] the lead firm in this effort for the

[2:13:23] root-cause analysis and they are in the

[2:13:29] audience. To my left is Zara -- and

[2:13:35] while there were tons of experts

[2:13:37] involved in this investigation, working

[2:13:41] for Parsons, multiple subs probably 50

[2:13:47] individuals engaged, Zara is a

[2:13:51] California PE and Chief Engineer to the

[2:13:53] subconsultant to Parsons and worked in

[2:13:56] the UK and USA and worked for London

[2:13:58] Underground and worked for BART systems

[2:14:02] with traction systems and worked on

[2:14:03] issues for BART related to the track

[2:14:06] engineering and so she is very familiar

[2:14:09] with our system. As she came in, she

[2:14:12] is also for other agencies worked at

[2:14:19] WMATA, London Underground and other

[2:14:21] places in U.S. and the U.K. Her

[2:14:23] credentials are long and wide and I'm

[2:14:25] only touching a small bit of it. But

[2:14:27] we're happy to have her here and to

[2:14:31] serve as the focus point of all

[2:14:33] expertise on the project. So to get

[2:14:36] started, I want to talk a little bit

[2:14:38] about the scope of this investigation.

[2:14:40] As you can see in the middle, we really

[2:14:45] focused on the area between West

[2:14:48] Oakland and Civic Center. So that is

[2:14:49] not to say that if an incident popped

[2:14:52] up that we didn't also include that

[2:14:54] into just a check and see if it was

[2:14:58] something holistic that was also added

[2:14:59] to this? We did do that, but from a

[2:15:02] root-cause analysis perspective and a

[2:15:04] scope perspective, it was really

[2:15:05] important for us to stay focused and

[2:15:08] not like kind of trace a thread down.

[2:15:10] An example of that is there was an

[2:15:12] incident in Lake Merritt that was

[2:15:15] incident No. 3 during this period of

[2:15:17] time. We did go there and find it was

[2:15:19] specifically a rod that had fallen from

[2:15:23] the ceiling and landed which caused

[2:15:24] that incident. So I just wanted to

[2:15:26] make sure that we had an understanding

[2:15:28] of what that scope was and the

[2:15:31] timeframe, we started, we looked

[2:15:35] incidents in August, starting August

[2:15:37] 29th. If something pops up today, the

[2:15:39] team will go out there and look at that

[2:15:41] as well. This is not over, but an

[2:15:43] ongoing investigation and we're

[2:15:45] continuing to look at any incidents

[2:15:47] that come up within our trackway. We

[2:15:51] followed a very scientific approach to

[2:15:54] this. That means it had to be super

[2:15:58] methodical and trying to get down to

[2:16:00] root-cause analysis is not an easy

[2:16:02] thing in a very complex system is a

[2:16:04] high-voltage system. It's not unusual

[2:16:07] to see arcing or sparks on our system.

[2:16:10] So it was really important to stay

[2:16:13] focused and keep a methodical approach

[2:16:15] and that started with collecting data.

[2:16:18] That meant our data that we have

[2:16:19] in-house as far as designs, as far as

[2:16:24] maintenance records, as far as other

[2:16:27] work that was going on, but also the

[2:16:29] very first thing that was done was for

[2:16:32] a whole slew of people to go to these

[2:16:36] incidents physically and look at them.

[2:16:38] That is part of that collecting of the

[2:16:41] data. So the process went through

[2:16:42] collecting the data and then analyzing

[2:16:45] the data, and then getting down to some

[2:16:49] hypotheses. A fish bone diagram is

[2:16:51] simply a graphical representation

[2:16:53] that helps a team after collecting a

[2:16:55] whole bunch of data to and trace

[2:17:01] through looking for cause and effect.

[2:17:03] It's a common diagram that is used in

[2:17:08] lien practices different quality

[2:17:09] practices. So this is a standard

[2:17:11] industry in order to do these types of

[2:17:14] investigations -- I won't go through

[2:17:15] every single one of these, but it gives

[2:17:17] you an idea of the extent of how the

[2:17:19] team went through to analyze root

[2:17:24] cause. You know, Michael said it and

[2:17:27] kind of stole my thunder there is a

[2:17:28] saying, this was a very thorough and

[2:17:31] comprehensive investigation, and

[2:17:33] report. Again, ongoing. You can look

[2:17:35] at the amount of man hours that was put

[2:17:37] on, the amount of field visits. So

[2:17:39] site visits we were in the tube, you

[2:17:43] know, 37 site visits, but that is not

[2:17:49] just to the tube and that is not just

[2:17:52] the Parson's team. So the consultant

[2:17:54] team had 50 individuals engaged

[2:17:56] throughout this process, but we were

[2:17:58] all hands-on deck and those -- the

[2:17:59] folks that stood up in the back are not

[2:18:02] the only folks that are involved in

[2:18:04] this. There's actually more folks that

[2:18:07] didn't stand up. I was going to tell

[2:18:09] them to stand up, but that is okay. We

[2:18:10] have had tons of people involved.

[2:18:13] These 37 site visits probably I would

[2:18:15] say at least 15 of them involved going

[2:18:18] out in the middle of the night. And

[2:18:20] sometimes that involved going out

[2:18:22] working all day here, going through

[2:18:23] files of data, and then going out and

[2:18:26] leaving this office, taking a break for

[2:18:28] a couple of hours and going to the site

[2:18:31] and going out into graveyard with the

[2:18:33] power off to really investigate that.

[2:18:35] A huge part of this, too, going through

[2:18:38] the bottom right is the amount of

[2:18:41] documentation that was reviewed, and

[2:18:44] requested by Parsons and by the

[2:18:46] consultant team. It's not unusual when

[2:18:48] you bring a consultant in, they are

[2:18:49] coming in cold. The first thing they

[2:18:51] want to know is all this information,

[2:18:54] where is this, where is this, you know?

[2:18:56] Sometimes it could be frustrating --

[2:18:58] make sure your mic is on. Sometimes

[2:19:00] it's frustrating for the BART team,

[2:19:02] because we want to get going right?

[2:19:04] and there has to be a combination of

[2:19:07] that because the team needs all that

[2:19:10] information.

[2:19:11] >> that is correct, the Parsons team

[2:19:15] does submit over 300 RFIs and to thank

[2:19:19] them for the very fast turnaround on

[2:19:22] those responses. Some were same day

[2:19:25] and did not same day, next day. So we

[2:19:28] appreciate that.

[2:19:29] >> There was a huge amount of data and

[2:19:31] all the BART team was very supportive

[2:19:34] as far as again maintenance records,

[2:19:37] engineering records everything that

[2:19:38] we could do and the whole team knew

[2:19:41] this was a top priority to get this

[2:19:45] investigation done and figure out what

[2:19:46] is happening in your system. So as far

[2:19:50] as when we get through the fish bone

[2:19:54] diagram and Zara will talk about the

[2:19:58] hypotheses. Before she does to say

[2:20:00] again to Michael's point, other than

[2:20:02] the Lake Merritt incident, where we do

[2:20:04] know it was one rod that fall, every

[2:20:07] other incident has a combination of

[2:20:09] factors. It's not one single thing,

[2:20:11] and there's not one single thing that

[2:20:15] happened for all, correct, Zara?

[2:20:17] >> That is correct. Yes.

[2:20:19] So this slide here represents the main

[2:20:23] group of hypotheses put together by the

[2:20:26] Parsons team. And in some cases the

[2:20:30] incidents are straightforward, where

[2:20:31] there may be one or two casual factors.

[2:20:34] In a few instances that are actually

[2:20:39] more complicated and require detailed

[2:20:41] analysis to determine root cause. This

[2:20:43] represent a comprehensive look at

[2:20:44] system as well as Substations, and

[2:20:47] external factors and also human

[2:20:51] factors. Thank you.

[2:20:52] >> Thanks. So let me start with

[2:20:57] redescribing our traction power system.

[2:20:58] You may remember when Myat was here a

[2:21:02] couple of months ago to give an

[2:21:04] overview of our traction power system.

[2:21:06] It's really important before we get

[2:21:08] started today to talk about how our

[2:21:09] system works and kind of work through

[2:21:11] that. Also I want to point out at the

[2:21:13] end of this presentation, I think

[2:21:15] there's like two-and-a-half pages worth

[2:21:17] of glossary. It's really hard for us

[2:21:18] sometimes to figure out how to not use

[2:21:22] the terms that we're always using. So

[2:21:24] we wanted to include a glossary so it

[2:21:28] would help. Our power comes from at

[2:21:34] 115 kV AC, the utility is then we then

[2:21:37] step that down to 34.5kV, those are

[2:21:47] redundant left and right cables through

[2:21:50] the systems that feeds into the

[2:22:01] Substation and take from AC to D.C. and

[2:22:06] that is used to power the third

[2:22:07] rail. The connection from the

[2:22:09] Substation to the third rail that gets

[2:22:11] the thousand volts out there. The

[2:22:14] railcars have a collective shoe

[2:22:21] assembly, which means there's a paddle

[2:22:24] riding along the third rail, pulling

[2:22:26] power to help it go forward and to

[2:22:31] power the auxiliary systems within the

[2:22:33] trains themselves. When you move the

[2:22:34] train as and wheels are turning and

[2:22:37] different heat, there's is current

[2:22:40] being generated and that current needs

[2:22:41] to go back to the Substation. So if

[2:22:45] follow the Orange lines around, it's

[2:22:46] really important that we close the loop

[2:22:48] in any kind of electrical environment.

[2:22:51] So the paddle is pulling power from the

[2:22:54] third rail. It's moving the train

[2:22:58] forward. It's powering the inside all

[2:22:59] of the equipment inside of there and

[2:23:01] the wheels and different heat are

[2:23:03] generating current. That current goes

[2:23:05] back out through the wheels, along the

[2:23:10] running rails to a negative return

[2:23:12] shunt and that shunt has a cable that

[2:23:16] goes back to the Substation and that

[2:23:19] closes the loop of our circuit with our

[2:23:22] trains. Also in addition to that, we

[2:23:25] have regenerative braking. If you have

[2:23:28] Electric Vehicles you already know what

[2:23:31] regenerative braking is, but for us I

[2:23:32] will describe with where the negative

[2:23:34] return current goes through the wheels

[2:23:36] to the running rail as a train brakes

[2:23:39] that excess power goes back out through

[2:23:44] the paddle onto the third rail and

[2:23:46] allows trains within the vicinity to

[2:23:49] pull power from excess power as opposed

[2:23:51] to pulling from the substation, which

[2:23:54] again makes us more efficient. This

[2:23:57] was in our legacy cars as in our cars

[2:23:59] today. So as we go through this, it

[2:24:03] really requires a lot of integration as

[2:24:08] far as this discussion and can't look

[2:24:09] at one thing in a bubble and say it's

[2:24:12] it or not it and how it integrates

[2:24:15] together? You probably remember from

[2:24:17] the CBTC presentation how important

[2:24:19] that systems integration is. As Zara

[2:24:20] goes through the rest of the slides she

[2:24:22] is going to talk about not just these

[2:24:24] individual pieces, but also how do they

[2:24:26] relate to each other? And so with that

[2:24:28] I will turn it over to Zara to talk

[2:24:30] about the very first piece.

[2:24:32] >> Thank you very much. So we'll

[2:24:35] start with traction power and looking

[2:24:36] at some of the findings and the

[2:24:40] analysis. What we're looking at on

[2:24:42] this slide is a rough representation of

[2:24:46] the traction power Substation

[2:24:48] configuration in the

[2:24:53] vicinity of the TransBay Tube and the

[2:24:54] green icons represent those in-service.

[2:24:58] So we'll look at the design intent,

[2:25:03] R-2 traction power Substations on the

[2:25:04] West side in San Francisco, there is

[2:25:08] MTW. And it is capable of providing 10

[2:25:11] megawatts. On the East Bay it's match

[2:25:14] bird KTE, shown in gray, that is the

[2:25:16] gray icon, because it's undergoing a

[2:25:20] planned upgrade. To facilitate that

[2:25:22] upgrade BART introduced a portable

[2:25:25] Substation known as KPS. We looked

[2:25:28] extensively at the dynamic of this and

[2:25:30] the records, and it was determined that

[2:25:35] this possible Substation has been used

[2:25:38] elsewhere successfully on the system.

[2:25:39] It's interesting that it has five

[2:25:46] megawatt rectifier with the

[2:25:47] transformer. So therefore, the overall

[2:25:49] capacity is noted on the diagram to be

[2:25:53] 3 Megawatts. Typically on BART

[2:25:57] traction power substation, they are 5

[2:26:02] Megawatt typically give or take 1-2

[2:26:05] miles apart. What is interesting while

[2:26:07] we originally had 10 Megawatt to the

[2:26:11] West and 10 Megawatt to East has

[2:26:15] dropped to 3 Megawatt. This is being

[2:26:27] analyzed and some of the hypotheses

[2:26:29] that have been bounced around. In

[2:26:32] addition to that, to be able to

[2:26:35] evaluate that further. That is

[2:26:38] happening through modeling. I would

[2:26:39] also like to point out how to our

[2:26:41] review of the records, this change

[2:26:44] happened in 2021. So it has been

[2:26:46] operating in this way for about 4-5

[2:26:50] years and therefore, it's not

[2:26:51] considered to be the root cause.

[2:26:53] However, we're looking at whether any

[2:26:56] of these small changes have moved the

[2:26:58] needle in terms the power quality.

[2:27:01] >> Zara said it, but I want to repeat,

[2:27:05] that KTE, the gray Substation is out of

[2:27:08] service because we had planned for a

[2:27:10] couple of years before that to upgrade

[2:27:14] that Substation. So it was a planned

[2:27:16] out of service, and we were waiting for

[2:27:19] -- well, not waiting, but when the

[2:27:21] portable substation was available it

[2:27:23] was all planned to be done this way.

[2:27:26] >> Thank you. So another finding, and

[2:27:29] design change that we came across

[2:27:32] through our review now this occurred

[2:27:36] through site inspections. I would like

[2:27:37] to take a moment to thank the BART

[2:27:40] structures crew, and BART maintenance

[2:27:41] for supporting these requests. They

[2:27:43] were through the night back-to-back. I

[2:27:46] personally did go out and walk the

[2:27:48] track as well to perform these

[2:27:51] inspections. And through these

[2:27:52] inspections we were able to verify that

[2:27:54] during the dates of the incidents

[2:27:58] between August and October, the cross

[2:28:04] bonds were not in place. There should

[2:28:07] have been ten cross bonds in place in

[2:28:10] the TransBay Tube and the purple

[2:28:12] represents the cross bond, essentially

[2:28:15] a cable that connects between two

[2:28:17] tracks and help provides additional

[2:28:19] parts for the return current to flow

[2:28:21] back to the Substation through both

[2:28:25] tracks. And when upon our further

[2:28:28] request for information, we determined

[2:28:30] that they were removed to support a

[2:28:33] single tracking project in 2020. And

[2:28:37] one finding is that upon completion of

[2:28:39] that project, the cross bonds were not

[2:28:46] reinstalled. However, since have been

[2:28:47] reinstalled.

[2:28:48] >> Thank you. I should also

[2:28:51] because this happened in 2020 and run

[2:28:57] in this configuration for 4-5 years

[2:29:00] it's not considered root cause, but

[2:29:02] taken together with the previous

[2:29:03] finding and this as well, we're looking

[2:29:06] at cumulative impact. So this is being

[2:29:09] analyzed through low-flow modeling.

[2:29:10] >> We did, since you added more, we

[2:29:14] did talk through why would those cross

[2:29:16] bonds been removed during 2020 and when

[2:29:21] I said negative return going back

[2:29:23] through the running rails. So those

[2:29:25] cross bonds connect the rails together.

[2:29:27] So there was a concern from the team

[2:29:29] working on that one sets of tracks

[2:29:31] while we were single tracking on the

[2:29:33] other side of the tracks there may be a

[2:29:37] potential for feeling that current.

[2:29:39] There are other ways to make sure that

[2:29:41] doesn't happen, and so this was, I

[2:29:43] think, put in place as kind of an extra

[2:29:45] measure, just to make sure that those

[2:29:49] two tracks were isolated.

[2:29:51] >> In order to take a closer look at

[2:29:54] what might be happening on the power

[2:29:58] system, the Parsons team recommended

[2:30:00] installing the power quality monitors

[2:30:02] on the top left you will see a photo of

[2:30:07] an actual PQA from this investigation,

[2:30:11] PQA being power quality analyzer and

[2:30:17] load monitoring tests were performed to

[2:30:19] look at incoming power quality and

[2:30:21] looking closely at the incoming current

[2:30:24] and incoming voltage into that

[2:30:26] Substation, as well as recording any

[2:30:29] harmonics. If you not familiar with

[2:30:33] the term "harmonics" think of them as

[2:30:37] unwanted frequency and harmonics are

[2:30:43] not of interest on this side, but could

[2:30:50] result in a change in the D.C. ripple

[2:30:52] and what we mean by D.C. ripple? So on

[2:30:55] the typical Substation with a thousand

[2:31:00] volt D.C. output much like a D.C.

[2:31:02] battery, you would expect that to be a

[2:31:05] constant voltage, but in practice it

[2:31:06] does come with a small amount of

[2:31:09] ripple. That ripple is normal. These

[2:31:12] are 12 pulse rectifiers, and through

[2:31:15] the process to take AC and rectify it,

[2:31:19] it's never possible to completely

[2:31:25] eliminate that ripple. What we were

[2:31:28] looking at is did that increase? With

[2:31:31] all of the minor changes here and

[2:31:33] there, did that D.C. ripple look

[2:31:38] different? And there were additional

[2:31:43] loggers. BART took proactive measures

[2:31:45] before the Parsons team started to

[2:31:48] install D.C. loggers. So similar to

[2:31:50] the AC loggers installed through this

[2:31:53] investigation there were D.C. loggers

[2:31:55] looking at the output of the

[2:31:59] Substations. The power quality

[2:32:01] analyzers installed to look at AC side

[2:32:03] coming in. So that gives our team a

[2:32:06] complete picture, and that data is

[2:32:09] currently being analyzed in, in fact,

[2:32:14] those power quality analyzers are in

[2:32:16] place at the MTW Substation and they

[2:32:18] were installed on the East Bay side at

[2:32:20] KPS and on the West Bay side at MTW.

[2:32:25] What was very interesting is that MTW

[2:32:31] incoming voltage was higher than

[2:32:33] expected. If you can squint enough you

[2:32:35] might be able to see on the a phase,

[2:32:40] 815 volt and 810 on B and C. So this

[2:32:44] is not the 34.5 coming in. In between

[2:32:51] the transformer and rectifier, that

[2:32:53] line to line voltage should be 783.

[2:32:56] That is how we know it's higher. When

[2:32:58] we account for the term ratio, we

[2:33:00] calculate that back and we were able to

[2:33:02] determine that basically what that

[2:33:05] means is instead of 34.5 coming in,

[2:33:09] it's closer to 35.5 on the B and C and

[2:33:16] 36.5 on the A. Overall this is a

[2:33:19] change of less than 5%, which is

[2:33:21] considered to be a tolerable limit.

[2:33:24] What we are currently looking at is

[2:33:27] what were the harmonics with that and

[2:33:34] resulting in frequencies on the D.C.

[2:33:36] side that perhaps the vehicles cannot

[2:33:38] tolerate? The vehicles are equipped

[2:33:40] with line filters so they are designed

[2:33:43] to handle these types of variations,

[2:33:48] but the analysis requires further look

[2:33:50] in terms of modeling and calculations

[2:33:52] to actually quantify that value. There

[2:33:55] are -- there are also standards that

[2:33:57] govern this, the en standards and ICC

[2:34:01] standards look particularly at

[2:34:05] electromagnet capability and immune

[2:34:06] limits for the system and that is also

[2:34:07] part of the analysis being performed by

[2:34:11] this time.

[2:34:12] >> To recap one thing said, some

[2:34:22] fluctuation is expected and 5% is

[2:34:24] tolerable. As long as it's -- not

[2:34:27] sustained; right? Like a sustained

[2:34:29] ripple could be a more problematic.

[2:34:31] But also something that we have for

[2:34:34] next steps and opportunities for

[2:34:36] improvements right now in order to do

[2:34:38] this, maintenance has to go out and put

[2:34:40] a logger there physically. So it's

[2:34:42] kind of a snapshot in time while that

[2:34:45] logger is there. So outside of that

[2:34:47] time, we're not sure when that is going

[2:34:50] up or down? So looking for remote

[2:34:53] monitoring tools that would allow us to

[2:34:56] do this logging in realtime moving

[2:34:58] forward is one of our recommendations.

[2:35:00] >> Thank you. And with the hypothesis

[2:35:06] that small incremental changes may have

[2:35:07] led to an increase in that D.C. ripple,

[2:35:10] the BART data loggers were looked at,

[2:35:13] and the output did seem to be

[2:35:17] consistent with D.C. ripple oof the

[2:35:19] normal limits, but that does not mean

[2:35:21] that they are outside of the tolerable

[2:35:23] limits. That is why the calculations

[2:35:26] are necessary. So in addition to that,

[2:35:28] now we'll talk more about the negative

[2:35:32] return and grounding and bonding. So

[2:35:34] again thanks to the BART structures

[2:35:36] team and BART M & E, inspections

[2:35:42] through the TransBay Tube to field

[2:35:44] verify all the negative return cables.

[2:35:47] We talked briefly about the

[2:35:48] correspondence and I won't repeat that.

[2:35:50] There was some electrical tests

[2:35:53] performed and what we can see there in

[2:35:55] the lower left corner is a fluke meter.

[2:36:00] Just looking at the resistance in

[2:36:03] particular. This time between the

[2:36:05] running rail and the track slab. And

[2:36:10] in two places along the tunnel, that

[2:36:12] resistance was low. We don't expect it

[2:36:14] to be low. We want the running rail to

[2:36:17] be insulated from the track slab.

[2:36:20] There were further tests performed in

[2:36:24] particular look at the Negative

[2:36:29] Grounding Device, if you are not

[2:36:32] familiar, the running rails can -- the

[2:36:34] rail potential can increase to slightly

[2:36:37] higher voltage. Once it reach a

[2:36:40] specific set point, those NGDs will

[2:36:43] Fire and that is a safety device. So

[2:36:47] the NGD at Powell was found to be

[2:36:49] shorted. That was taken care of by the

[2:36:53] BART team. And after that, we did see

[2:36:55] an overall improvement in those

[2:36:59] resistance values.

[2:37:08] >> So moving on to the third rail

[2:37:13] insulators looking at extensive

[2:37:15] including wayside inspections and

[2:37:17] off-site inspections. A number of

[2:37:19] insulators with were taken to an

[2:37:21] oversight lab, pictured in the bottom

[2:37:24] right in various conditions. Several

[2:37:26] as founding and two new. The tests

[2:37:28] performed in two different labs

[2:37:31] actually included destructive testing

[2:37:34] and non-destructive testing. Some of

[2:37:36] the observations in the lab including

[2:37:38] the forensic testing that was

[2:37:40] performed, the surface layer of dirt on

[2:37:43] some of those insulators was found to

[2:37:46] be conductive at least on the ones that

[2:37:48] were tested in the lab. And the shims,

[2:37:50] which are the thin layers of material

[2:37:52] that sit beneath the insulators help

[2:37:55] adjust the height of insulators were

[2:38:01] found to be damp. These findings are

[2:38:14] not perceived to be the root cause and

[2:38:18] there appears to be other factors that

[2:38:21] may have initiated some of these

[2:38:24] insulator failures and it's also worth

[2:38:27] noting that not all of the incidents

[2:38:32] included insulator failures. So

[2:38:33] another finding we'll touch on later is

[2:38:36] rail relay storage practices.

[2:38:38] >> Sorry, if you don't mind, if I

[2:38:40] could jump in one -- real quickly on

[2:38:42] the insulators just to follow-up from

[2:38:45] the earlier conversation. So there's

[2:38:48] also been news reports that we are

[2:38:51] cleaning the insulators and that is

[2:38:52] partially true. We have cleaned all of

[2:38:57] our insulators from Embarcadero to 24th

[2:39:00] and Mission. We did that primarily

[2:39:01] because we had incidents in this area,

[2:39:03] which we're focusing on the root cause

[2:39:06] now, but it takes a crew of eight

[2:39:10] overnight to do 20 insulators. We have

[2:39:14] over 100,000 insulator and varying

[2:39:20] degrees of maintenance across the

[2:39:21] industry. So I want to put out and

[2:39:22] clarify we're not planning to clean all

[2:39:26] 100,000 plus insulators, but this area.

[2:39:38] Thank you, Zara.

[2:39:40] >> Let's go back one slide to point

[2:39:42] out that the team has extensive

[2:39:51] experience in analyzing insulator

[2:40:00] failure. This is how we're able to for

[2:40:01] example to determine if the insulator

[2:40:05] was root cause or not? So looking at

[2:40:08] the red and Black line that represents

[2:40:10] the coverboard and thicker gray block

[2:40:12] beneath it represents the third rail.

[2:40:14] It's as if you are standing in front

[2:40:16] and facing the third rail. The white

[2:40:20] rectangles with the blue underneath

[2:40:23] represent undamaged insulators, and the

[2:40:28] red represents damaged insulators. In

[2:40:30] this case we'll start with the yellow

[2:40:34] oval with damage noted to the top of

[2:40:36] the coverboard that would be

[2:40:39] consistent with that damage from at the

[2:40:42] top-down from an initiating source. We

[2:40:44] also can see here when insulators fail

[2:40:51] there's a characteristic usually aligned

[2:40:56] with it and not in all cases, but we

[2:40:59] saw it in location 8 and location c and

[2:41:02] we have a team of Fire/Life Safety

[2:41:06] experts on this panel that have being

[2:41:08] involved in this review. And what is

[2:41:11] interesting too, is that it does tail

[2:41:13] left in the direction of travel. But

[2:41:16] the most interesting finding is that

[2:41:18] pattern did not exist behind insulator

[2:41:21] B. It was nowhere to be found. The

[2:41:24] wall was relatively clean, the tunnel

[2:41:26] wall. But what was interesting is that

[2:41:30] it was projected downwards onto the

[2:41:31] track slab and in the direction of

[2:41:36] travel. So the hypothesis that is

[2:41:38] under evaluation right now is that

[2:41:40] insulator b did not fail on its own.

[2:41:44] It was an initiating event from above.

[2:41:48] A D.C. arcing event, and we'll look at

[2:41:51] some of the actual photos from this

[2:41:57] incident. So once A then B would have

[2:42:01] failed in quick succession, as well as

[2:42:05] C. We're still evaluating A. This is

[2:42:12] under analysis in that initiating was

[2:42:16] at play in insulator A. On the top

[2:42:19] right is a photo of the coverboard I

[2:42:22] mentioned and stepped profile on the

[2:42:23] top of that coverboard, where it's

[2:42:25] evident based on this evidence that the

[2:42:27] damage was from the top-down. It also

[2:42:31] aligns with the area of the material

[2:42:33] loss in the third rail. So for third

[2:42:36] rail to have essentially a hole in it

[2:42:38] of that size, that is typically due to

[2:42:43] high-energy arcing. That would be the

[2:42:45] type of energy required to essentially

[2:42:47] vaporize that metal in that location.

[2:42:52] And that is beneath it is the remnants

[2:42:56] of the insulator and the deposition

[2:43:03] pattern and the left is how looks on C,

[2:43:07] directly behind where the insulator

[2:43:09] stood.

[2:43:10] >> I wanted to add here just to again

[2:43:14] give kind of a level of the effort that

[2:43:19] was put. Not only was this kind of

[2:43:21] detail looked at, but even that when

[2:43:24] you see that splatter behind it on the

[2:43:27] wall, scrapings were taken of that and

[2:43:29] sent to a forensic lab to determine

[2:43:30] what materials that was as part of the

[2:43:32] investigation? Just to give you a

[2:43:34] little bit more context on how detailed

[2:43:37] and how thorough the investigation has

[2:43:40] been. So in addition, just to be very

[2:43:45] thorough the team also looked at the

[2:43:48] protection scheme and the third rail is

[2:43:51] protected by D.C. breakers, like at

[2:43:59] home, but much larger that can trip and

[2:44:02] isolate faults. The review of the

[2:44:04] records revealed that, in fact, that --

[2:44:10] typically the D.C. breakers have an

[2:44:11] ability to trip without an MPR. The

[2:44:16] MPR is Multi-Function Protection Relay

[2:44:19] that helps customize settings. We can

[2:44:20] think of it as an additional layer of

[2:44:23] protection. When based on the review

[2:44:25] of the reports, these functions have

[2:44:28] been disabled during the time of the

[2:44:30] incidents. Now that does not mean that

[2:44:35] the breakers didn't have the ability to

[2:44:36] trip because they have a mechanism, but

[2:44:38] they are more basic. It would have

[2:44:40] relied on that basic mechanism. So

[2:44:45] further RFIs were submitted and we

[2:44:46] asked why they were disabled? And the

[2:44:49] reason that was provided is that they

[2:44:53] were nuisance tripping in the opinion

[2:44:57] upon return to service and perhaps

[2:44:59] Sylvia might want to weigh-in.

[2:45:02] >> There's apparently nuisance

[2:45:04] tripping that impacted being able to

[2:45:06] run cars in the morning, like

[2:45:07] consistently every morning. So we

[2:45:10] found that they disabled these in order

[2:45:14] to make sure that trains were running

[2:45:16] smoothly. I also want to add though

[2:45:20] these this had a been replaced and you

[2:45:22] see the old one versus the new one,

[2:45:25] although to me they don't look a whole

[2:45:28] lot different. Our MPRs in our system

[2:45:30] have been aging and a lot of them are

[2:45:33] within 20-25 years old. We do have a

[2:45:35] project, and we have had an ongoing

[2:45:41] project to replace MPRs. We're about

[2:45:43] 60% done with that, about $20-22

[2:45:51] million and should be completed within

[2:45:54] months, but had not been completed.

[2:46:00] >> Moving on to vehicles and includes

[2:46:05] vehicle specialists, from actually all

[2:46:09] over the world we'll start with the

[2:46:13] collector shoe assembly and there is an

[2:46:16] image of the typical shoe assembly and

[2:46:18] bottom left shows the position on the

[2:46:20] vehicle. On the bottom right is a

[2:46:22] close-up view of the collector shoe and

[2:46:24] the braid, and the fuse. So we'll talk

[2:46:26] more about this on the next slide. I

[2:46:28] just wanted to give an overview of when

[2:46:33] it's actually located. Okay four of

[2:46:35] these collector assemblies from the

[2:46:36] instance were taken to an o site lab

[2:46:39] for forensic testing.

[2:46:41] ?

[2:46:44] >> Next slide. In addition to that

[2:46:46] four fuses were provided to the Parsons

[2:46:50] team by the BART vehicles team. These

[2:46:54] fuses appear to exhibit a non-standard

[2:46:56] failure, and they were taken to a lab

[2:47:00] for further testing including forensic

[2:47:02] testing. So fuses much like the fuses

[2:47:03] that you find in your home appliances

[2:47:07] have a fusible link that will melt if

[2:47:10] the current exceeds that threshold.

[2:47:14] And these fuses are different because

[2:47:16] they are slightly larger, but they do

[2:47:18] include that fusible link. They also

[2:47:21] have quenching sand that helps

[2:47:23] extinguish that arch at that point. So

[2:47:27] when that fuse typically fails that we

[2:47:30] would expect that to turn back, but in

[2:47:33] this case, the sound remained white.

[2:47:36] And we can see extensive damage to the

[2:47:38] exterior of the fused body also known

[2:47:43] as carbonization. The tests were

[2:47:48] extensive, including an elementary

[2:47:49] analyzer test on the area that looks

[2:47:53] like brass. It was confirmed to be

[2:47:55] brass. So those pins actually zinc or

[2:47:59] zinc plated. And it was interesting

[2:48:01] that brass was found there. That is

[2:48:03] for brass to form with zinc, we need

[2:48:06] copper and an extremely high

[2:48:10] temperature. So it it's yet to be

[2:48:12] confirmed, but the hypothesis is that

[2:48:14] there was high-energy arcing in that

[2:48:17] area. In addition to that there were

[2:48:19] other signs, looking at the log. So if

[2:48:23] you are not familiar with the

[2:48:27] log, the braid is connected to the fuse

[2:48:31] and that rectangular piece with the two

[2:48:37] holes, thank you. That also has

[2:48:39] material loss. You can see that

[2:48:41] there's a kink in it. It's not

[2:48:45] designed that way and that is another

[2:48:47] sign there was perhaps high-energy

[2:48:50] arcing at that point and more evidence

[2:48:53] was looking closely at the end of the

[2:48:56] end cap where there is beading. That

[2:48:59] is basically those tiny little metal

[2:49:01] balls that you can see there. That

[2:49:04] would be indicative of perhaps a high

[2:49:08] energy, maybe a thermal event, or arcing

[2:49:10] within the end cap and it may have come

[2:49:14] from the log itself. However, this is

[2:49:18] still under analysis. Further testing

[2:49:21] is recommended on the fuses, and we'll

[2:49:28] have additional updates in the report.

[2:49:30] >> The quenching sand, sorry you are

[2:49:32] expecting that sand to be Black instead

[2:49:37] of white. Next slide. I will start

[2:49:39] with the rail storage. Zara brought it

[2:49:42] up a minute ago briefly. At BART the

[2:49:48] maintenance practice for years and

[2:49:50] years I don't know -- like forever, has

[2:49:54] been to do our rail in 800' sections.

[2:49:59] And I noticed before or when talking to

[2:50:01] one of the Directors about rail

[2:50:04] rally and it just means replacing

[2:50:06] the rail. That is our projects that we

[2:50:08] do all over the place. But given the

[2:50:11] short windows of maintenance windows

[2:50:14] during the blanket that three hours

[2:50:15] where the power is off, it take a long

[2:50:17] time to get that rail moved out to the

[2:50:20] right Section and then to do the work.

[2:50:23] So what the practice has been is to

[2:50:26] bring rail out, and place it Wayside

[2:50:32] either in between the third rail and

[2:50:34] running rail or between the two running

[2:50:36] rail and then at a later time doing the

[2:50:41] actual project BART maintenance are l

[2:50:42] go out with single tracking or shut

[2:50:45] down and replace the rail. They leave

[2:50:47] the old rail there and over the next

[2:50:49] period of time, come out during the

[2:50:54] blanket and pick that rail up -- they

[2:50:56] cut it into sections and take it out.

[2:50:59] What the team saw, I will turn it over

[2:51:00] to Zara

[2:51:03] thank you, Sylvia. As part of the

[2:51:05] analysis on track, one of the findings

[2:51:08] was a non-standard practice to store

[2:51:10] ribbon rail in the gap between the

[2:51:13] rail and the third rail and to

[2:51:15] accommodate that, it does appear that

[2:51:19] the cantilever brackets were cutback.

[2:51:21] So in the top photo you can see an

[2:51:24] example of that where there's a

[2:51:28] diagonal cut. That was cutback to

[2:51:31] accommodate this. So why is this

[2:51:34] important? Well, there was one event

[2:51:35] that did appear to include the ribbon

[2:51:39] rail, involved the ribbon rail that was

[2:51:42] evidence of arcing found on that ribbon

[2:51:44] rail itself. So yes.

[2:51:46] >> Since the investigation, all that

[2:51:48] rail has been removed in this area by

[2:51:50] the way. And then you want to talk

[2:51:52] about the insulated joints.

[2:51:55] >> Insulated joints were also

[2:51:58] carefully looked at. Insulates joints

[2:52:00] are a normal part of the BART

[2:52:02] infrastructure and typically used to

[2:52:05] help with the detection of train and

[2:52:08] negative return current has got to go

[2:52:12] around the IJ locations that is

[2:52:14] facilitated by jumpers around the IJ, the

[2:52:19] D.C. current can't pass through them

[2:52:22] without going around. What we noticed

[2:52:24] in support of the earlier project that

[2:52:29] was mentioned, IJs were installed at the

[2:52:31] locations shown on that graphic. To

[2:52:34] picture an IJ, there's an photo of that

[2:52:36] captioned, and the graphic is showing

[2:52:38] the green rectangles as the IJs that were

[2:52:41] installed to support those projects.

[2:52:44] And the purple was also green at one

[2:52:46] time. So during the investigation, it

[2:52:50] was determined that through the rail

[2:52:52] relay work that was done on the M-2

[2:52:55] track, so basically a new length of

[2:52:58] running rail was installed on the M-2

[2:53:04] track 10/12 and IJ was removed and two

[2:53:06] weeks later, the other side, the

[2:53:08] running rail on the other side was

[2:53:10] installed, and the IJ was removed. So

[2:53:12] basically for a period of two weeks,

[2:53:15] there was a different operating

[2:53:17] condition in play for one of the --

[2:53:19] least two of the incidents. So that,

[2:53:22] too, is being analyzed and again, it

[2:53:25] requires modeling to fully determine

[2:53:27] what the impacts are of this.

[2:53:30] >> Next slide.

[2:53:33] >> Finally just to be thorough, there

[2:53:36] was a huge effort to look at

[2:53:40] environmental factors and human and

[2:53:42] external factors. So I mean the slides

[2:53:46] are self-explanatory, but there's

[2:53:48] evidence of water intrusion in places.

[2:53:50] During one of the inspections, our team

[2:53:53] also noticed there was standing water

[2:53:58] in the TransBay Tube, only a small

[2:54:00] area, and we submitted an RFI confirmed

[2:54:06] to be due to a broken sump pump that

[2:54:11] has been repaired. Generally debris as

[2:54:13] you can see throughout platform area

[2:54:16] and the tunnel. And rail grinding as

[2:54:19] well, which I believe Shane with speak

[2:54:22] more to that on the rail grinding

[2:54:25] practices, because there are good

[2:54:27] measures in place to minimize that. So

[2:54:33] overall, because these incidents

[2:54:34] happened in the TBT, the environmental

[2:54:38] factors will probably remain as one of

[2:54:40] the contributing factors, but not

[2:54:41] necessarily the root cause.

[2:54:46] >> Next slide.

[2:54:51] >> So the final area is the interface.

[2:54:53] The interface is basically where all

[2:54:56] disciplines come together, and this is

[2:54:59] where we have basically the interaction

[2:55:02] of the shoe, and the third rail. The

[2:55:05] team has looked at extensive data,

[2:55:10] including the geo car Dator, looking at

[2:55:12] track defects in particular and their

[2:55:15] locations. The team also performed a

[2:55:18] third rail gapping study, which

[2:55:19] confirms the location of third rail

[2:55:22] gaps. And one of the hypotheses is the

[2:55:27] possibility of shoe bounce or a quality

[2:55:31] of contact issue where a D.C. arc might

[2:55:35] momentarily form, but if it does form,

[2:55:41] perhaps it's being sustained, and we're

[2:55:43] looking into this as a possibility.

[2:55:45] But while we're looking at this it's

[2:55:49] also important to remember that a small

[2:55:53] amount of arcing is also normal on

[2:55:58] major D.C. electrified third rail

[2:56:00] systems. It's momentarily and not

[2:56:02] expected to be a sustained arc. Once

[2:56:08] the D.C. arc does form, it's difficult

[2:56:11] to break that arc.

[2:56:12] >> Next slide. These are all of the

[2:56:15] improvements that have been implemented

[2:56:18] while the roots cause analysis team has

[2:56:20] been working on the investigation. So

[2:56:23] I just want to mention that the first

[2:56:26] one up there is that there was a -- not

[2:56:31] our structure, but San Francisco at the

[2:56:34] San Francisco transition structure,

[2:56:36] there were two transformers that had

[2:56:38] been out of service, one from, I think,

[2:56:41] December of 2024 and one in February.

[2:56:43] That has been since put back in place.

[2:56:46] But all of ones with check marks is

[2:56:53] what maintenance has done for instance

[2:56:54] to restore the cross bond and clean

[2:56:58] up debris, you know? As Michael

[2:57:01] mentioned cleaning the insulators, and

[2:57:04] also looking at the repairs of the

[2:57:08] negative return device that one short

[2:57:10] was repaired, but we're looking at all

[2:57:12] of the other device as well. And

[2:57:15] looking at which ones need to be

[2:57:17] prioritized to be repaired or replaced.

[2:57:19] There is already a project for that

[2:57:21] for maintenance to do that replacement.

[2:57:26] And RS & S is looking at different

[2:57:37] vehicles and maintenance has removed

[2:57:38] the ribbon rail and also been replacing

[2:57:42] direct fixation pads, which were found

[2:57:45] to also be degraded and also had some

[2:57:49] moisture. Again, that is a project

[2:57:52] being done by maintenance. Next slide.

[2:57:54] Do you want to talk about these? So

[2:57:57] in each -- I will talk about them. So

[2:58:00] we said in the beginning that for each

[2:58:02] incident it was most likely multiple

[2:58:06] things that had caused those incidents.

[2:58:09] And there wasn't, you know, even

[2:58:11] though we're kind of combining these

[2:58:14] into categories, there wasn't like one

[2:58:16] thing that affected every single

[2:58:17] incident. So this is just kind of a

[2:58:21] breakdown of the incidents that

[2:58:22] happened, and what were the potential

[2:58:25] causes related to that? Again, except

[2:58:27] for incident 3, where we know there was

[2:58:29] a rod that fell from the ceiling, that

[2:58:32] had that impact. Next slide. And next

[2:58:36] steps, before I get started, I just

[2:58:38] want to say the picture on the right is

[2:58:40] not the BART system. It's a picture

[2:58:44] from the rail inspection vehicle

[2:58:47] software to use for display purposes.

[2:58:49] But the next steps, there's a couple of

[2:58:51] big ones. First is the finish the

[2:58:53] modeling that the consultant is doing

[2:58:54] of this area. They are putting in

[2:58:58] every single piece of equipment,

[2:59:01] everything in the system, just

[2:59:02] everything having to do with that.

[2:59:03] There's a couple of things that are

[2:59:05] good with that. One, it's going to

[2:59:07] help us run different scenarios to

[2:59:10] validate the causes that we think about

[2:59:12] -- that we have come up, or the team

[2:59:15] has come up with. And also be able to

[2:59:18] run scenarios to see if we can recreate

[2:59:24] that explosion, or arcing digitally as

[2:59:28] opposed to physically? We're also

[2:59:31] looking at opportunities to better

[2:59:34] maintain our insulators, whether that

[2:59:35] means looking at different design and

[2:59:37] materials being used. Nationally we

[2:59:38] have already been in touch with many

[2:59:40] other agencies on their cleaning

[2:59:42] practices, as well as the type of

[2:59:45] insulators that they use. And Zara

[2:59:48] mentioned for the vehicles we're

[2:59:51] conducting some additional vibration

[2:59:53] studies, and tests, on the collector

[2:59:56] shoes. And then for policy and

[2:59:59] procedures, working with safety, I

[3:00:00] think between safety and maintenance to

[3:00:06] develop a configuration control type

[3:00:09] document, and procedures. So that when

[3:00:11] certain changes are made in the system,

[3:00:12] they are signed off. Like, that

[3:00:15] everybody knows that has happened, and

[3:00:17] they all agree to why it happened, and

[3:00:19] in that document, or in that procedure,

[3:00:21] also what is the date for that to be

[3:00:26] put back the way it should be. So that

[3:00:30] is definitely an opportunity for

[3:00:31] us. I mentioned earlier about having

[3:00:36] constant continual remote monitoring,

[3:00:37] and logging tools. I want to note and

[3:00:39] one of the reasons that we added the

[3:00:41] picture to the right, you guys, most

[3:00:44] people are familiar with our rail

[3:00:47] inspection vehicle. We use that for

[3:00:50] mostly we have been using it mostly for

[3:00:55] track, looking at track defect and

[3:00:57] needs there. Just this week we started

[3:00:59] running it with power on to use that

[3:01:01] vehicle to look for any heat anomalies

[3:01:06] or power anomalies in that area. They

[3:01:08] have done two runs this week and that

[3:01:10] is also something we'll evaluate the

[3:01:12] data that we're getting from there and

[3:01:16] how helpful that will be in future.

[3:01:19] With the modeling depending how it

[3:01:22] turns out it may be that we expand to

[3:01:24] other places in the system to help

[3:01:26] identify and be proactive about any

[3:01:30] potential vulnerabilities. With that,

[3:01:31] next slide. We'll take questions.

[3:01:39] >> Thank you Michael, Sylvia and Zara.

[3:01:43] I appreciate the very in-depth

[3:01:46] presentation about these incidents.

[3:01:47] Let us first turn to public comment

[3:01:49] before we go to Directors comments.

[3:01:53] District Secretary, who do you have for

[3:01:54] us?

[3:01:55] >> We have four public comments at the

[3:01:58] moment. The first is Glen Overton.

[3:02:04] Glen, please come up.

[3:02:22] Madam President, Mr. General Manager

[3:02:25] and staff, Board of Directors,

[3:02:33] California in 2024 was a 4.1 billion --

[3:02:39] trillion dollar economy. What part of

[3:02:47] that economy does BART generate? You

[3:02:54] have objective or subjective accounting

[3:02:58] . I don't care whether it's objective

[3:03:02] or subjective. The State needs to

[3:03:08] realize its responsibility to refurbish

[3:03:14] a more than 50-year-old system.

[3:03:30] Those parts need changing. We take

[3:03:35] care our bodies, we take care of our

[3:03:39] homes, we stitch our clothes, mend our

[3:03:45] socks, we don't take care of insulators?

[3:03:53] Because of budget neglect or something

[3:03:55] of that sort? $4.1 trillion in 2024

[3:04:08] budget and all we're asking for is a

[3:04:13] budget that will renew this system.

[3:04:18] >> Thank you, Glen.

[3:04:21] >> Jerry Grace. Followed by Barney

[3:04:23] Smits, Aleta Dupree and Roland. Jerry.

[3:04:35] >> Good morning. I hope this is

[3:04:37] still morning. Good afternoon. I

[3:04:39] don't know which is which? But I

[3:04:43] appear because will you please put the

[3:04:47] picture No. 13, please? I wish -- I

[3:04:55] thought there was a picture. I'm

[3:04:57] trying to point out to you guys about

[3:05:00] the picture up there on that screen,

[3:05:07] because what you used for Clipper and

[3:05:10] that machine -- I brought it up last

[3:05:13] time. How for me, use that machine,

[3:05:16] because I do not know how to use that

[3:05:21] kind of machine. Either BART's

[3:05:25] machine, that one, AC Transit and the

[3:05:28] one before that changed it. You have

[3:05:31] San Francisco -- I don't like that one

[3:05:33] too much. And the same thing I just

[3:05:36] saw now, the yellow one. I don't know

[3:05:38] how to use that one, and San Francisco

[3:05:41] Muni one. But everybody else has the

[3:05:43] same one, the gray one. Better -- the

[3:05:49] yellow one, or the Muni one. I don't

[3:05:51] like that one too much. I do not know

[3:05:55] how to use that machine. I tried to

[3:05:58] use it once before. I do not know how

[3:06:02] to do it. What I'm hoping you

[3:06:07] understand what I mean, please I wish

[3:06:11] somebody or someone or somebody could

[3:06:14] show me how to use that kind of

[3:06:17] machine. I ask somebody once before in

[3:06:21] San Francisco and nobody at all can

[3:06:24] help me and nobody there at all to help

[3:06:27] me use the machine, and add more money

[3:06:30] on Clipper. Thank you.

[3:06:33] >> Barney Smits. Please, go ahead.

[3:06:36] >> Actually, Bob, I think GM Powers

[3:06:43] was going to respond

[3:06:44] I will make it my business to help Mr.

[3:06:48] Grace to learn that machine,

[3:06:49] Chairperson Foley.

[3:06:50] >> Appreciate it, thank you.

[3:06:51] >>> Barney.

[3:06:52] >> Thank you. My name is Barney Smits

[3:06:54] I'm a licensed professional engineer

[3:06:55] with over 25 years' experience as

[3:06:58] a BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety

[3:07:00] expert. Looking at the report, I'm not

[3:07:02] sure what the hired expert consultants

[3:07:05] provided BART? There's no definitive

[3:07:08] conclusion. The report does not

[3:07:09] clearly present a root cause for these

[3:07:12] traction power arcing flash over and

[3:07:14] Fire incidents. Of the nine incidents

[3:07:17] investigated in the report, one within

[3:07:21] Lake Merritt station appears to be a

[3:07:24] human error and the other has no

[3:07:26] comment. That leaves seven incidents,

[3:07:27] two of which were in the TransBay Tube.

[3:07:29] What is the root cause? It's clear

[3:07:32] from the report that five of the seven

[3:07:34] remaining incidents have four or more

[3:07:38] possible causes. And that six of the

[3:07:40] seven incidents have traction power

[3:07:42] transients as a cause and all seven

[3:07:45] incidents have environmental factors as

[3:07:49] a cause. Defined as metal dust, rail

[3:07:52] dust, on the insulator and moisture in

[3:07:54] the air. While some tunnels are very

[3:07:57] wet like the poorly could be structed

[3:07:59] tunnel from Colma to the airport, they

[3:08:01] are not relevant. The TransBay Tube is

[3:08:04] very dry. So approximately five of the

[3:08:06] seven incidents are in try areas,

[3:08:09] leaving metal rail dust as the most

[3:08:12] likely root caused. Since insulator

[3:08:13] cleaning stopped five years ago, but

[3:08:17] was restored in December, note eight

[3:08:18] incidents took place in the three

[3:08:21] months between late August and late

[3:08:23] November. And only one incident under

[3:08:26] investigation has happened since the

[3:08:28] cleaning of the insulators restarted in

[3:08:31] December. The missing cross bonds are

[3:08:34] likely a contributing factor as

[3:08:36] electrical power will choose the

[3:08:38] shortest distance to complete the

[3:08:39] circuit and the missing cross bonds

[3:08:41] forced it to move down the dust

[3:08:44] costed insulators and note the

[3:08:47] significant coverboard damage that

[3:08:48] indicates Fire and is the source of the

[3:08:50] smoke had a hindered the operations in

[3:09:00] the TransBay Tube. Thank you.

[3:09:01] >> Thank you, Barney. Next

[3:09:06] speaker is Aleta Dupree.

[3:09:07] >> Thank you, Chair Mark Foley and

[3:09:10] Members. Aleta Dupree, for the record,

[3:09:13] she and her representing team folds,

[3:09:16] swearing skirt folds. Thank you for

[3:09:17] the report. I think it's comprehensive

[3:09:19] and helpful and I like going to the

[3:09:22] force. These incidents are like

[3:09:24] snowflakes, none is really like the

[3:09:26] other. They may have common themes.

[3:09:29] But they still have difference even if

[3:09:34] they are nuanced. Arcing in the system

[3:09:36] does happen. I go to New York and I

[3:09:38] see arcing in the subway all the time.

[3:09:40] I was riding a METRO North train from

[3:09:46] New Haven Connecticut and I was in the

[3:09:48] big running through the big railyard

[3:09:51] that lead into Grand Central Terminal

[3:09:59] located in New York City and maybe 20

[3:10:01] tracks wide there was a big bang flash

[3:10:05] that lit up the whole tunnel. I think

[3:10:09] it kicked up dust, that is arcing for

[3:10:12] you and we perceive it as normal and

[3:10:14] I'm sure they have ways that they saw

[3:10:18] what happened and addressed it. I

[3:10:20] appreciate the explanations about AC

[3:10:23] and D.C., and ripple, I know it's not

[3:10:25] the same thing as the wine or alcohol

[3:10:28] known as ripple. You know, AC is like

[3:10:33] skirt with folds and D.C. is like a

[3:10:41] skirt that doesn't have folds. This is

[3:10:44] what I have seen. Now how do we make

[3:10:47] sure these things don't happen again?

[3:10:53] And I do know Bob Powers and Michael

[3:10:56] Jones our management team does take

[3:10:58] very serious -- does take safety very

[3:11:02] seriously to the point of being

[3:11:06] paramount

[3:11:07] >> I ask that you take it seriously

[3:11:09] too and remember that BART is the

[3:11:10] People's system. Thank you.

[3:11:12] >> Thank you, Aleta.

[3:11:14] >> And our last speaker is Roland,

[3:11:21] Roland, please, go ahead thank you,

[3:11:26] >> Good morning. Happy New Year.

[3:11:28] Well, I just wanted to express my

[3:11:31] personal gratitude for the quality of

[3:11:33] this report.

[3:11:34] And I'm going to circle back eleven

[3:11:40] years to show you how to move forward

[3:11:43] in terms of transparency. I'm talking

[3:11:46] about the incidents when we were

[3:11:49] getting voltage surges. We know now

[3:11:54] the voltage, 750, 783 and we're surging

[3:11:57] to 1500 volts. What was happening is

[3:12:03] that people when going, profiling the

[3:12:05] rail, but not picking up the shavings,

[3:12:08] and what ended up happening that we

[3:12:12] have two sections, with the same

[3:12:13] Section of third rail at the same time

[3:12:15] and that is how we ended up with 1500

[3:12:18] volts. And I'm not going to get into

[3:12:21] details how we eventually figured that

[3:12:23] out, but what I can tell you is that

[3:12:26] what I'm telling you is probably the

[3:12:27] first time you ever heard of it. There

[3:12:30] was a complete Blackout. There was no

[3:12:33] explanation, and suddenly the problem

[3:12:35] disappeared, and you know, people just

[3:12:38] went on with their business. So FAST

[3:12:43] forward ten-plus years and look at

[3:12:45] today, the transparency, the amount of

[3:12:48] analyses, and that is a direct result

[3:12:51] of good governance. Thank you, BART.

[3:12:54] We're in good hands. Thank you.

[3:12:57] >> Thank you, Roland.

[3:12:58] >> That was the last public speaker.

[3:13:02] >> All right. I will now turn to

[3:13:06] Director comments. I do not see any

[3:13:07] Directors in the queue at this point.

[3:13:10] Director Raburn.

[3:13:14] >> Well, I'm first. I really don't

[3:13:17] feel qualified to speak elaborately on

[3:13:23] this. My academic training was no in

[3:13:25] the operation of high-voltage

[3:13:28] electrical systems as the BART and

[3:13:31] hence I have refused to

[3:13:35] speculate on the nine incidents that

[3:13:37] involved power that disrupted service

[3:13:39] between August 29th and December 5th.

[3:13:42] Instead of I have encourage our General

[3:13:45] Manager to seek explanations from

[3:13:47] professionals, and implement the

[3:13:49] necessary changes to end further

[3:13:51] delays. That is all of our goals, I'm

[3:13:54] sure. I'm satisfied that the

[3:13:59] root-cause analysis report we're

[3:14:01] reviewing followed a rigorous

[3:14:04] investigation and scientific process.

[3:14:06] Is the report conclusive? No, but it

[3:14:12] identified several contributing factors

[3:14:13] that BART has already changed

[3:14:16] operational procedure and advanced

[3:14:18] numerous infrastructure changes as

[3:14:23] illustrated on page 23 of the report.

[3:14:25] This allows me a degree of optimism

[3:14:27] that we're doing our best to protect

[3:14:31] our passengers from harm, delay. As

[3:14:37] well in the near-term I anticipate

[3:14:39] completing the upgrade to the 10

[3:14:46] megawatt Transbay East Substation KTE

[3:14:51] abbreviation to replace the 3 megawatt

[3:14:54] Substation and I also anticipate the

[3:14:57] operation of BART's modern rail

[3:15:01] geometry car to inspect the system

[3:15:04] while the system is energized. And

[3:15:11] And with those additional data point

[3:15:15] and removing variations in some of the

[3:15:21] potential causes by correcting the

[3:15:22] cross bonds, I think that is a critical

[3:15:26] aspect of what we have done already.

[3:15:30] So all I can say is good work so far,

[3:15:36] and let's keep working at it until we

[3:15:40] get it done to no defects. Thank you.

[3:15:44] >> Thank you. Any other Director

[3:15:48] comments? We have virtual system you

[3:15:51] can use. Director Ames.

[3:15:53] >> Sorry. I'm having a little

[3:15:55] technical problem with my computer.

[3:16:00] Okay. Sorry. I would like to go to

[3:16:04] slide 3. I can't look at the slides --

[3:16:09] I need some technical support. Can we

[3:16:12] go to slide 3, please? Yes.

[3:16:24] So on August 29th, we had an

[3:16:28] evaluation. Staff did an evaluation on

[3:16:30] the smoke in the tube. And it was on

[3:16:33] August 29th, and we also had two other

[3:16:37] incidents that I don't see on there.

[3:16:41] There were three separate incidents.

[3:16:43] They were not collectively the problem.

[3:16:45] It was very specific, different

[3:16:49] locations. So we had a power outage at

[3:16:52] West Oakland in the morning around 5:00

[3:16:55] a.m.

[3:16:56] So that was likely due to a malfunction

[3:16:59] with the switches, which maybe even

[3:17:01] could equate to something that happened

[3:17:02] in San Leandro, but not as bad. But we

[3:17:06] lost power completely in West Oakland.

[3:17:07] Then in the afternoon, there was a

[3:17:12] train that lost a paddle, a car, lost a

[3:17:16] paddle and a fuse was blown and there

[3:17:19] was a small Fire. That was in the

[3:17:24] afternoon around 2:00 and then the

[3:17:26] smoke in the tunnel in the commute hour

[3:17:34] at 5:00ment so I don't think

[3:17:36] collectively there's are forming with

[3:17:38] hypotheses and more questions. I

[3:17:40] think we have isolated events that we

[3:17:41] need to hone in on. I just want to --

[3:17:46] so right now I don't see those

[3:17:49] incidents on August 29th. Right now it

[3:17:51] looks like we're just focusing on loud

[3:17:54] noises insulator flashes, but I really

[3:17:56] want to hone in on August 29th and get

[3:17:58] more information on this. Because I do

[3:18:00] think we can get to the bottom of the

[3:18:03] root cause quickly. Although we have a

[3:18:06] lot of good analyses that shows

[3:18:10] there's room for improvement. I wanted

[3:18:11] to go to like slide -- I guess 4. So

[3:18:19] this to me is a slide that is telling

[3:18:23] because you need to define the problem

[3:18:25] before you collect the data. So did we

[3:18:28] define the problem here? It doesn't

[3:18:30] look like we did. We went to this

[3:18:34] really giant field of possibilities,

[3:18:38] and created hypotheses. So this is a

[3:18:40] frustrating report, although there's a

[3:18:41] lot of good data to look at, but I

[3:18:44] don't see massive -- you know, studies,

[3:18:49] and more follow-up in the fashion that

[3:18:51] is being presented today. But so

[3:18:54] again, I will go back to August 29th.

[3:18:57] I would say what data did we collect

[3:19:02] for example, on the outage -- power

[3:19:06] outage at West Oakland? I would like

[3:19:07] to know what that is. And then why are

[3:19:12] we having paddles being removed off the

[3:19:15] train car? And then we have got the

[3:19:18] insulator problems, which is likely the

[3:19:21] cause of the TransBay Tube smoke event.

[3:19:23] Because I do recall when we got an

[3:19:29] evaluation from Staff September 11th

[3:19:30] there was a blown insulator picture.

[3:19:34] That was the 29th. And we showed the

[3:19:37] blown insulator, and it looked

[3:19:41] conclusive it was an insulator. So

[3:19:45] when we start compiling data, did you

[3:19:47] -- I guess I would ask the consultant,

[3:19:50] doing these RFIs and you got

[3:19:52] information, did you get information on

[3:19:54] the maintenance of the insulators?

[3:20:02] >> Yes.

[3:20:03] >> So what was the determination of

[3:20:05] the maintenance on the insulators -- I

[3:20:08] apologize for my voice.

[3:20:11] >> Well, we reviewed all of the

[3:20:13] record and it does appear there is

[3:20:15] maintenance process in place for the

[3:20:18] insulators. We did also obtain that

[3:20:22] data on the West Oakland outage you are

[3:20:25] referring to. We have looked extensive

[3:20:29] as well at SCADA logs, and the

[3:20:37] field fields and forensics. Overall,

[3:20:39] the information is as presented here.

[3:20:45] There is nothing evidence to currently

[3:20:48] suggest that the insulator was the root

[3:20:50] cause of that particular incident at

[3:20:52] this stage.

[3:20:53] >> I just want to drill-down on this

[3:20:54] and to understand what was the

[3:20:57] maintenance for the insulators when

[3:21:02] this data collection started? I just

[3:21:03] want to know what was given to the

[3:21:06] consultant, and the data of what we did

[3:21:09] on the insulators? What was the

[3:21:12] maintenance program? So maybe you got

[3:21:14] to get back to me on this.

[3:21:15] >> Well, I think there's some

[3:21:18] confusion. So I will speak up and go

[3:21:20] from here. There is some Maximo data

[3:21:23] that the consultants looked for. There

[3:21:26] is also replacement projects that say

[3:21:30] if there's a, you know, if there's a

[3:21:32] defect or see a defect inspecting it,

[3:21:35] we should replace the insulators. I

[3:21:38] think what you may be getting to the

[3:21:41] question is did we have a cleaning

[3:21:43] process in place and the answer I think

[3:21:45] is no, we did not is have a cleaning

[3:21:47] protocol in place.

[3:21:48] >> Can we get the information of what

[3:21:51] we're doing and why we stopped the

[3:21:54] cleaning? It's a question I get often

[3:21:56] from the press.

[3:21:57] >> Understood.

[3:21:58] >> So I would like to get that and I

[3:22:00] appreciate you trying to be transparent

[3:22:01] on this

[3:22:03] sorry, Director Ames, the last cleaning

[3:22:06] program we had, my understanding we

[3:22:07] were using dry ice and it was

[3:22:10] deteriorating the quality of insulators

[3:22:15] and why we deferred that going forward.

[3:22:17] >> And to get the detail of why it was

[3:22:20] happening and why it stopped, just on

[3:22:22] the cleaning itself of the insulators?

[3:22:29] So let's -- I think did you on the data

[3:22:38] collection, maybe we can jump over to

[3:22:39] another slide, because this is not very

[3:22:42] exciting. We can go to the paddle,

[3:22:47] showing the paddle of the train. The

[3:23:01] collector paddle. You want to do

[3:23:05] another slide? Yeah. So that I would

[3:23:15] like to know why that paddle got

[3:23:19] dislodged off the car, and how many

[3:23:22] times that has happened during this

[3:23:24] timeframe? So to me this is another

[3:23:26] data point that is interesting, like

[3:23:27] what happened? And I know you will

[3:23:31] evaluate this, I guess it's called a

[3:23:34] collector shoe, sorry, not called a

[3:23:36] paddle. Sorry. But to find out why

[3:23:39] these paddles are coming off the cars

[3:23:42] is a concern. This is a separate issue

[3:23:44] now. We have insulator and now we have

[3:23:46] this issue. This is a car issue, train

[3:23:51] car issue. And if a paddle comes off,

[3:23:54] and doesn't connect with the third

[3:23:58] rail, what happens to the system? Does

[3:24:02] a Fire start? Does the fuse blow?

[3:24:05] Because that was my understanding.

[3:24:07] >> Director Ames, I'm going to ask Leo

[3:24:12] Pica, our Chief rolling stock Officer to

[3:24:13] answer that question. I think Zara and

[3:24:16] Leo will say that is a common

[3:24:18] occurrence as well. But I will let Leo

[3:24:20] speak for himself.

[3:24:23] >> Thank you.

[3:24:26] >> Hello Directors. Leo Pica, Chief

[3:24:30] Mechanical Officer RS&S. They are

[3:24:31] designed to break with a notch in there

[3:24:35] and when the paddle breaks, the

[3:24:37] collector on the car will -- and if two

[3:24:44] paddles break, the rest of the cars

[3:24:47] will take over. So they are designed

[3:24:51] to break, for the paddle to break

[3:24:54] damage to collector assembly, that

[3:24:57] Assembly with the fuse, and other items.

[3:25:02] >> Is it your understanding that if a

[3:25:05] paddle breaks, something -- the fuse in

[3:25:08] the train car could blow from your

[3:25:13] experience?

[3:25:14] >> So the paddle is what connects to

[3:25:17] the third rail. So once the paddle is

[3:25:20] broken, no power is going to the fuse,

[3:25:24] or collector assembly. And the

[3:25:26] Assembly on the other side of the car

[3:25:28] take over. Also when the trains

[3:25:30] travel, each car has four paddles. So

[3:25:33] as the train is traveling any one of

[3:25:36] those paddles will collect power from

[3:25:38] the third rail.

[3:25:39] >> My understanding there's a surge of

[3:25:41] power without the paddle and then the

[3:25:43] fuse blows, is that not correct?

[3:25:47] Maybe I could ask the consultant this

[3:25:49] and to know the nexus between the blown

[3:25:51] fuse in the train car and the paddle

[3:25:53] issue? So maybe this can be done

[3:25:55] further -- I just thought we might have

[3:25:56] none.

[3:25:58] >> Director Ames, we're happy to bring

[3:25:59] you into the office and walk you

[3:26:01] through, you know, and trace the power

[3:26:05] from the shoe collector to the paddle.

[3:26:07] Happy to bring you into the with Leo

[3:26:10] and walk you through very patiently all

[3:26:12] of those mechanics.

[3:26:13] >> Okay. I think it would be good to

[3:26:16] know, because I know there was a Fire

[3:26:18] that happened when that paddle came

[3:26:22] off, a few was blown. It was a very

[3:26:27] small Fire. It got resolved and it was

[3:26:29] all August 29th. So I think that is a

[3:26:31] separate issue, and I'm glad you are

[3:26:33] looking at this to find out what is

[3:26:35] happening -- I guess, there's another

[3:26:37] picture of the fuse. But you have got

[3:26:39] fuses in the train cars that are also a

[3:26:42] problem. So I would like to know the

[3:26:44] nexus of what is happening between the

[3:26:45] two system and that is a train car

[3:26:49] issue. And I think I just wanted to

[3:26:53] maybe conclude to -- because I know I

[3:26:55] have a lot of questions probably.

[3:26:57] Maybe to the next steps. Right before

[3:27:04] the next steps. I just want to point

[3:27:06] out something to the consultant.

[3:27:07] Because I know you have worked, WMATA,

[3:27:19] Washington Transportation Authority in

[3:27:23] Washington, D.C., the Federal Transit

[3:27:25] Administration actually gave a safety

[3:27:34] directive that is related to

[3:27:36] insulators. Excuse me, let me look

[3:27:48] here -- where is it? Apologize. Okay.

[3:27:53] This is from the FTA "safety

[3:27:59] directive." Must update design

[3:28:01] specifications for third rail insulator

[3:28:04] and establish update procedures for

[3:28:08] testing, storage, install, inspect,

[3:28:11] cleaning and replacement. And it goes

[3:28:14] into details related to that directive.

[3:28:15] The other directive is must explain

[3:28:23] the original tenet and define the

[3:28:25] rationale for stopping the program and

[3:28:27] clarify intentions to reinstate the

[3:28:30] program of putting in -- I guess what

[3:28:33] they did, they stopped, they stopped

[3:28:36] repairing their insulators or stop

[3:28:39] cleaning their insulators. To me, this

[3:28:41] is a root cause and I know Staff says,

[3:28:43] we don't know what the root cause is

[3:28:46] for the insulator, but it's a tried and

[3:28:52] trued issue, but finding out that we

[3:28:55] didn't maintain the insulators could be

[3:28:57] something that FTA is interested in.

[3:28:59] Because they clearly told WMATA and directed

[3:29:05] them to further replace the insulator

[3:29:08] and maintain the insulators. So this

[3:29:10] is very serious to me. I don't know

[3:29:11] what we're going to do with this

[3:29:12] report? I don't know if FTA is going

[3:29:15] to get involved with this? I don't

[3:29:16] really want them to get involved, but I

[3:29:18] would like to go to next steps, please.

[3:29:21] Because I think it gets to what you

[3:29:23] want to do.

[3:29:39] this is great. This is what the FTA

[3:29:45] asked them to do. I wanted to be a

[3:29:49] direct result of what we didn't do, we

[3:29:57] didn't clean, that step.

[3:30:02] >> To be clear, Director, I would

[3:30:07] caution us and the Deputy General

[3:30:10] Manager was very clear and our experts

[3:30:12] in the field were very clear, that the

[3:30:15] cleanliness of the insulators was not

[3:30:17] the root cause. So I would just

[3:30:19] caution us to be choose your words

[3:30:23] wisely. Because as of right now, that

[3:30:25] is not the case. So I just have to

[3:30:31] push back and ask you to be careful

[3:30:32] there.

[3:30:34] >> Okay, maybe we get some more data

[3:30:35] and we can figure out, this is a link.

[3:30:38] The lack of cleaning relates to a new

[3:30:45] program less flashovers, less

[3:30:46] explosions. I do appreciate that you

[3:30:48] clean the insulators in the tube. So

[3:30:50] that is a step forward. I know Shane

[3:30:52] said he was going to start cleaning the

[3:30:56] insulator, even though he knew the

[3:30:58] report was coming out.

[3:30:59] >> Director, I'm going to be clear,

[3:31:06] from our experts the cleanliness of the

[3:31:09] insulators by itself was not the

[3:31:11] singular root cause. You heard that

[3:31:13] and you keep trying to make the

[3:31:15] statement that it is -- it is not that.

[3:31:18] >> So are we going -- are we deciding

[3:31:21] right now that it's not true, that the

[3:31:23] cleaning has nothing to do with the

[3:31:26] exploding insulators?

[3:31:27] >> Isolated just the cleanliness of

[3:31:30] the insulators, no.

[3:31:31] >> Okay. I beg to differ. If we go

[3:31:35] back in time, I would like back to in

[3:31:37] time to see what insulators blew up

[3:31:42] with BART's history? And find out what

[3:31:44] we did? If an innocent -- if there was

[3:31:49] insulator issue with BART, I would like

[3:31:51] to know to validate what we're saying.

[3:31:53] I see your point not to jump to

[3:31:57] conclusion, but to see more maintenance

[3:31:59] and historical data that happened to

[3:32:01] BART with blown insulators, and then

[3:32:09] we're done.

[3:32:10] >> I don't know if we're ever done,

[3:32:14] Director. It's continually improvement

[3:32:15] is what we're about. I would just say

[3:32:17] Director, I hope you are with me and

[3:32:20] Michael and the team up here. What

[3:32:22] we're trying to do is -- is minimize

[3:32:28] these occurrences, eliminate these

[3:32:30] occurrences; right? And with the best

[3:32:31] probable data that we have. That is

[3:32:34] where we want your help with; right?

[3:32:36] And we have 100,000 insulators and

[3:32:41] insulators go out not just on BART, but

[3:32:44] other systems. So we're doing the work

[3:32:46] right now. So you know, we're moving

[3:32:49] forward to collect the data, to find

[3:32:51] out where the risk points are,

[3:33:00] eliminate those risks moving forward.

[3:33:02] I'm not going back ten years and

[3:33:04] looking at every single insulators that

[3:33:06] went out. I'm not.

[3:33:07] >> I just want to try to correlate the

[3:33:10] cleaning related to the exploding

[3:33:12] insulators. That is all

[3:33:13] I'm moving forward to make this

[3:33:16] world-class operation even more

[3:33:19] world-class, Director Ames.

[3:33:22] >> Right I'm on the same page with

[3:33:25] that. Going to the vehicles. We want

[3:33:28] to look at the vibration study and the

[3:33:32] fuse Assembly. I just like to know can

[3:33:36] we get more information of why this

[3:33:38] issues are coming up and if that is

[3:33:40] causing flashover?

[3:33:42] >> Again, the shoes, the paddles and

[3:33:45] shoes, Leo will bring you in. I'm

[3:33:48] trying to help us move this discussion

[3:33:50] forward, because I want to hear if we

[3:33:52] have missed anything, if you think that

[3:33:54] we're short here or need to pay

[3:33:56] attention more there. But the design

[3:33:58] -- happy to bring you in, Director

[3:34:00] answer, and give you a graduate-level

[3:34:02] course with Leo and his team on the

[3:34:05] design and how the paddles are designed

[3:34:07] to the shoes, the cars, and how --

[3:34:09] happy to do that and walk you through

[3:34:13] very with great detail, and so that you

[3:34:17] can fully understand how that works.

[3:34:19] >> And I want to can be I do want to

[3:34:22] say to BART that we have done a lot of

[3:34:25] work in the system. And we replaced

[3:34:30] 34.5kv cable from Balboa to the West

[3:34:33] portal. We replaced a lot of equipment

[3:34:37] related to grounding, monitoring the

[3:34:40] currents in the system. Sylvia you had

[3:34:43] brought up. Do you want to show that

[3:34:44] slide you brought up that shows we

[3:34:47] spent $22 million? I think that was

[3:34:49] another slide you had on there.

[3:34:51] >> That is not on the slide, but it's

[3:34:53] the MPRs. If we go to the MPRs.

[3:34:56] >> The Multi-Function Protection

[3:34:57] Relays.

[3:34:58] >> Yes.

[3:34:59] >> We have a project in place that is

[3:35:03] funded for about $20-22 million to

[3:35:07] replace those systemwide,

[3:35:08] and retrofitting of negative

[3:35:10] grounding which is critical for

[3:35:12] limiting voltage. So I say BART is

[3:35:14] doing a good job. You are seeing an

[3:35:17] assessment of our system that may not

[3:35:18] be the root cause of the insulators,

[3:35:20] but you are basically showing that it

[3:35:22] works. I don't see a -- I don't see a

[3:35:25] real threat here based on what the

[3:35:27] consultant provided other than we do

[3:35:28] have some problems with the trains, the

[3:35:34] paddles, fuses and insulators and power

[3:35:38] outages with the Substation going out.

[3:35:39] I would like to know exactly how we

[3:35:42] resolved that particular issue, which

[3:35:43] was on the 29th.

[3:35:44] >> Director Ames, for the record, the

[3:35:46] things that you just said are not

[3:35:48] accurate. We have -- and unless,

[3:35:50] unless you are making the assertions

[3:35:53] that the consultants that we have hired

[3:35:58] are not professionals and not

[3:36:00] credentialed and willing to risk their

[3:36:10] credentials.

[3:36:11] >> Which comment was that?

[3:36:12] >> We have problems with the fuse and

[3:36:19] insulators. Unless you saying that the

[3:36:22] Parsons team, a global firm is

[3:36:26] willfully at this dais telling

[3:36:30] untruths, your comments are inaccurate.

[3:36:32] >> I want to clear about this, I don't

[3:36:35] think we have enough information on the

[3:36:38] insulators and the maintenance is and

[3:36:39] with what we're doing or not doing and

[3:36:43] I just read that WMATA had a safety

[3:36:46] directive to maintain their insulators

[3:36:50] and what we're going to do?

[3:36:52] >> Director Ames?

[3:36:53] >> Yes.

[3:36:55] >> We have other Directors in the

[3:36:56] queue.

[3:36:57] >> Okay. I will move on. Thank you.

[3:37:00] >> Thank you. Vice President Wright

[3:37:03] followed by Director Ghosh.

[3:37:05] >> Thank you. I guess I have to start

[3:37:07] by saying we're not the WMATA Board.

[3:37:12] Sylvia, have been issued an directives

[3:37:16] on insulator cleaning?

[3:37:18] >> No.

[3:37:19] >> Zara, in your opinion, is insulator

[3:37:26] a problem at BART?

[3:37:27] >> Certainly that is an issue

[3:37:29] everywhere, not just at BART.

[3:37:33] >> I think the question is do you

[3:37:35] think that is a problem at BART?

[3:37:37] >> Do you think it's the root cause of

[3:37:39] this?

[3:37:40] >> Ultimately, I would say that based

[3:37:44] on the evidence it does not appear to

[3:37:47] have been the root cause. With the

[3:37:49] photo that we presented earlier with

[3:37:51] the coverboard damage, that is directly

[3:37:54] above the insulator and even a comment

[3:37:57] from Barney Smits, who also did

[3:38:00] weigh-in on that, it's coming from above

[3:38:05] the flashover is irrelevant to some

[3:38:08] event, with the hypes even with a new

[3:38:11] insulator at that location, subject to

[3:38:14] that type of event from above it would

[3:38:16] have probably also failed in that way.

[3:38:18] So we're well-aware of all of the

[3:38:20] circumstances and if you look back at

[3:38:23] that slide, there were a number of

[3:38:25] other insulators in between that were

[3:38:27] subjected to similar environmental

[3:38:28] conditions, and they did not fail.

[3:38:30] There were also instances that do not

[3:38:33] include insulator failures, and even

[3:38:34] the ones that did have some insulator

[3:38:38] involvement, those insulators in some

[3:38:40] cases there's a glow, which we describe

[3:38:44] as Corona discharge and they actually

[3:38:46] didn't fully fail and didn't flashover,

[3:38:48] and speaks to the resilience of some of

[3:38:51] the insulators. So we're fully aware,

[3:38:55] of course there's no such thing as a

[3:39:00] perfect insulator and our team has read

[3:39:02] the WMATA report and we're well-aware

[3:39:04] of that. But these are different

[3:39:06] circumstances as to what WMATA was

[3:39:08] dealing with.

[3:39:09] >> Thank you, on that particular

[3:39:12] question sounds conclusive to me.

[3:39:15] Thank you, Zara, thank you, Sylvia,

[3:39:19] thank you, Shane and thank you, Bob. I

[3:39:22] say BART reliability is great, and

[3:39:27] customer satisfaction at historic highs

[3:39:28] all of that is true. None of that

[3:39:30] should be lost in this conversation and

[3:39:34] none of that excuses the service shut

[3:39:36] down and disruptions. I know our

[3:39:39] management knows that. And I don't

[3:39:40] think anyone is here making excuses. I

[3:39:43] think the detail and rigor of this

[3:39:45] analysis speaks for itself. And it

[3:39:47] shows this is a serious problem that

[3:39:49] we're taking seriously. I do have

[3:39:52] questions, Sylvia. I'm sorry I didn't

[3:39:56] ask more in our briefing and I'm sorry,

[3:39:58] it took me a while to absorb

[3:40:00] this. This is a really substantive

[3:40:02] analysis and I think it does a

[3:40:05] disservice to the rigor of the work to

[3:40:07] limit to a slide deck and memo. I

[3:40:09] talked about this before, but the item

[3:40:11] before this just for example had a

[3:40:13] 27-page detailed report in the packet

[3:40:15] that is the real meat of that item.

[3:40:17] And I'm disappointed we didn't have

[3:40:18] that here. I know this is a norm for

[3:40:21] BART, but I think it's a norm that we

[3:40:24] need to change. Now onto the slides

[3:40:26] and questions. For this, I really

[3:40:27] want to focus on the thing in our

[3:40:30] control and decisions that were made by

[3:40:31] BART, because there's a lot of things

[3:40:33] that are not in our control. Can we go

[3:40:36] to slide 12?

[3:40:37] >> Sylvia, you can change the slide

[3:40:39] now.

[3:40:50] >> Thank you. I'm still trying to wrap

[3:40:52] my head around this a little bit. I

[3:40:54] understand why the cross bond were

[3:40:56] removed and I don't understand why they

[3:40:59] weren't put back and I don't understand

[3:41:01] why for nearly six years we went

[3:41:03] without what seems a pretty possible

[3:41:05] aspect of our system as designed? Can

[3:41:08] you speak to that bit more?

[3:41:12] >> I will turn it over to Shane Edwards,

[3:41:16] AGM of Operations.

[3:41:18] >> Thank you. Director, first of all,

[3:41:21] no excuses. But that being said, it

[3:41:24] was initially done as a result of a

[3:41:28] safety factor that was recognized

[3:41:31] during the TBT retrofit project. In

[3:41:33] order to isolate the track they were

[3:41:35] working on, you have to make it an

[3:41:41] island and disconnect from the other

[3:41:43] track with current that has to go

[3:41:45] somewhere. So every night they would

[3:41:46] go in at 9:00 p.m. during revenue

[3:41:49] service.

[3:41:51] >> I'm sorry, just in the interest of

[3:41:53] time, I understand why it happened and

[3:41:57] just asked why they weren't put back

[3:41:58] and why it took six years to talk about

[3:42:00] it

[3:42:06] >> Sylvia mentioned to work on from

[3:42:08] the project to maintenance standpoint

[3:42:09] and we're usually the first ones in and

[3:42:11] last ones out, and that is something

[3:42:12] that you can't close out the project or

[3:42:16] take in this case close a project out

[3:42:20] with underbudget, you know on-schedule.

[3:42:22] And we shouldn't just report that out.

[3:42:24] We should report that all things have

[3:42:27] been put back in the same configuration

[3:42:29] that they were prior to the project

[3:42:33] starting.

[3:42:34] >> Director, just to be clear -- you

[3:42:37] know, Sylvia has got it together moving

[3:42:41] forward. But you know, you're

[3:42:42] absolutely right. They came out with

[3:42:44] the TransBay Tube project and they

[3:42:46] should have put back in there. There's

[3:42:49] no two ways. We didn't put them back

[3:42:50] in; right? And that is on the people

[3:42:52] up here, that is on the people in the

[3:42:55] audience here from the maintenance

[3:42:58] folks and operations folks. They

[3:42:59] should have been put back in, you know?

[3:43:01] With that project, or that project

[3:43:03] should have had operations put them

[3:43:05] back in. So they are back in now. She

[3:43:07] has got the change stuff in, but you

[3:43:09] know, I have had this discussion. That

[3:43:13] same question on Tuesday, you know,

[3:43:15] take them out, fine for safety thing,

[3:43:17] but they should have been put back in

[3:43:19] with that project. There is no two

[3:43:23] ways about that and we're owning that

[3:43:25] and Shane knows that. He is not going

[3:43:28] to sugar-coat over that, that those

[3:43:30] bonds should have been put back in.

[3:43:32] >> Thank you. I appreciate that.

[3:43:33] Just to clarify what you said as kind

[3:43:35] of action we're taking in response, do

[3:43:38] we now have just sort of standardized

[3:43:41] project language or contract language

[3:43:44] on returning work sites to normal

[3:43:46] working order?

[3:43:47] >> Director Wright, we do not have

[3:43:49] that today. But we will have it within

[3:43:51] the next oh, I don't know few weeks for

[3:43:54] that part. And then we're working with

[3:43:55] safety on what would be the right

[3:44:01] configuration control or change control

[3:44:02] process, because that is something that

[3:44:05] would -- so if this type of event

[3:44:09] happens in the past, who all needs to

[3:44:11] sign-off, that they all agree stack

[3:44:13] hands and the date they will be put

[3:44:17] back. Yes.

[3:44:18] >> Are we look at other projects that

[3:44:19] have happened, just to make sure this

[3:44:22] kind of thing didn't happen elsewhere?

[3:44:24] >> Yes, absolutely.

[3:44:25] >> Thank you.

[3:44:30] Slide 17 on MPRs being disabled.

[3:44:33] Were these considered in a State of Good

[3:44:35] Repair as disabled or considered past

[3:44:37] their useful life?

[3:44:38] >> They were considered past their

[3:44:41] useful life, which is why we have a

[3:44:44] project to replace them all.

[3:44:47] >> Excellent, that speaks to me for

[3:44:48] the funding that we have for capital

[3:44:53] work. Slide 20 on storage.

[3:44:54] Something you said on

[3:44:55] this slide has stuck with me, which is

[3:44:57] the way we were storing railways was

[3:45:02] a maintenance project forever, and

[3:45:04] that sentiment to me might be one of

[3:45:06] the root causes here. I don't know how

[3:45:08] many longstanding practices that we

[3:45:09] might have that are not best practices?

[3:45:11] I'm not the expert, and I'm not trying

[3:45:14] to pretend I am. But I do think we

[3:45:18] should be thinking about a procedure

[3:45:21] commitment to review and not limited to

[3:45:22] the causes that we have looked at

[3:45:24] through this analysis, but across our

[3:45:27] maintenance work.

[3:45:29] Slide 23. I don't need it now.

[3:45:31] But I would love it if you could

[3:45:33] follow-up with implementation timeline

[3:45:35] for all of the in-progress

[3:45:38] improvements. I would also love

[3:45:40] implementation timeline for the next

[3:45:41] steps listed on slide 25.

[3:45:44] >> So we -- we brought that up at our

[3:45:48] prep meeting, Director. We'll pull

[3:45:49] together an update, you know, on all of

[3:45:52] those that are in progress where we

[3:45:54] are, the timeline and we'll provide

[3:45:56] that all that information to the entire

[3:45:57] Board.

[3:45:58] >> Thank you. I really appreciate.

[3:46:02] And just in general it has been talked,

[3:46:04] but it seems to me this is more an

[3:46:08] interim update than a final report, am

[3:46:11] I correct in my judgment?

[3:46:12] >> We're not done with all of the

[3:46:13] investigation, yes.

[3:46:14] >> I think that is fine. I'm glad we

[3:46:17] didn't wait for conclusion to have a

[3:46:18] conversation about this. I do hope

[3:46:20] this comes back to the Board as a final

[3:46:23] report when it's ready and trust that

[3:46:24] will happen. Just to summarize, I

[3:46:26] think we have -- confirm. Thank you.

[3:46:30] Just to summarize, I think we have done

[3:46:31] a lot of work to understand what has

[3:46:33] happened. I think we're doing a lot of

[3:46:35] things to address potential causes and

[3:46:37] prevent these disruptions from

[3:46:38] happening again. And we don't have a

[3:46:40] short answer to what is causing this,

[3:46:42] because this is lots of different

[3:46:44] things at different time and different

[3:46:47] places and it's a complex system. It's

[3:46:49] frustrating, but it's honest. What I

[3:46:50] want to focus on is having clear

[3:46:53] timeframes for next steps that we're

[3:46:55] taking. I think we need a clear

[3:46:57] commitment to broader review of

[3:46:59] longstanding maintenance practices and

[3:47:00] just the fact that you mentioned

[3:47:02] briefly we haven't had anyone signing

[3:47:04] off on system changes is alarming to

[3:47:06] me. I think we need to do a better job

[3:47:10] making our performance metrics easily

[3:47:12] accessible to the public, so they don't

[3:47:13] only Lear or see them when they are bad

[3:47:15] and I think we need to have 134

[3:47:18] conversations on responsibility and

[3:47:20] accountability on this, because BART is

[3:47:22] essential infrastructure for the Bay

[3:47:23] Area, and that means we can't fail and

[3:47:27] we have it's not about being punitive,

[3:47:30] but taking responsibility and I want to

[3:47:32] close again by thanking everyone who

[3:47:35] contributed to this work immense amount

[3:47:37] of work that has gone into it. It's

[3:47:39] not conclusive. It's critical. It's

[3:47:41] comprehensive and it's deeply

[3:47:43] appreciated. Thank you.

[3:47:45] >> Thank you. Director Ghosh,

[3:47:49] follow by Director Flores.

[3:47:52] >> Thank you. I think I shared this

[3:47:57] during our briefing this is a lot for

[3:47:59] someone when is not an engineer to

[3:48:02] internalize. At the same time, the

[3:48:04] Board is not the only people who are

[3:48:06] looking at these reports. So I truly

[3:48:10] appreciate the depth, the detail, the

[3:48:13] rigor, and the transparency, and the

[3:48:18] vulnerability with which we're sharing

[3:48:19] this information. I think it's really

[3:48:22] critical and important to do it in that

[3:48:25] way. And I think it would be nice if

[3:48:28] we had a clear root cause, that it

[3:48:31] wasn't so messy. That we could just

[3:48:33] have the insulators and start cleaning

[3:48:35] them. So I think, you know, we have to

[3:48:37] keep that in mind, the easy answer

[3:48:39] would be to have a clear root cause.

[3:48:42] The more difficult answer is it's a

[3:48:45] fragile system in many ways that a lot

[3:48:47] of folks work to keep resilient, and

[3:48:51] work on redundancies to keep BART sort

[3:48:53] of going, and moving. And again, to

[3:48:58] Director Wright's -- to VP Wright's

[3:49:02] point we're seeing really high

[3:49:03] satisfaction with BART's service right

[3:49:06] now. That being said, I do have to say

[3:49:08] that these kind of failures are

[3:49:12] devastating for our riders. My bus was

[3:49:14] ten minutes late today and just the

[3:49:16] stress of waiting, knowing if I'm going

[3:49:18] to make it to the meeting on time? It

[3:49:21] really messes with your day, with your

[3:49:23] job, with your life, especially it

[3:49:26] messes with our freeways, you know? It

[3:49:29] really does drive home the point that

[3:49:30] we're a critical part of moving people

[3:49:32] around the bay. So we do have to do

[3:49:35] better. But the responsibility for

[3:49:38] that doesn't just lay with BART, but

[3:49:40] lays with our funding and lies with

[3:49:45] historical underinvestment in the

[3:49:46] maintenance of our public transit

[3:49:47] systems. All of that. So I hope that

[3:49:51] we -- I don't hope. I know the Board

[3:49:54] has been very clear that we want you to

[3:49:56] look at this, and we want you to look

[3:49:58] at it in-depth and to figure out

[3:50:00] everything that we could be doing

[3:50:01] better to avoid these incidents in the

[3:50:03] future. So I would like you all to

[3:50:06] continue on this, and report-back on

[3:50:09] these sort of scenarios. And to

[3:50:14] understand how electricity moves

[3:50:15] through our system and what we can do

[3:50:16] to make it better? I think there are

[3:50:19] benefits to the study, just in figuring

[3:50:21] out if there are small things across

[3:50:23] the system we doing better? It's

[3:50:26] almost like an audit of how our system

[3:50:29] works day-to-day. What are some best

[3:50:31] practices that we can implement? Along

[3:50:33] with understanding that some of these

[3:50:34] challenges are round how much time do

[3:50:36] we have to do this work? I think with

[3:50:39] the storage of the rails with the

[3:50:43] limited time to do the work and phasing

[3:50:45] it. So the solutions will not be just

[3:50:48] engineering. It will also be human

[3:50:50] factor and processes, and we have to

[3:50:51] make sure that in the process of doing

[3:50:53] this, we don't create any new issues

[3:50:55] especially when we're so focused -- if

[3:50:57] you are so focused on the insulators

[3:51:01] and know we stopped cleaning them to

[3:51:04] avoid other issues. So it's a little

[3:51:06] bit of game to figure out, you know,

[3:51:08] how to make the system work for us in

[3:51:12] the best way able to. I did want to ask

[3:51:15] in your further analyses, is there any

[3:51:23] incorporation the schedule changes that

[3:51:25] happened just before the first

[3:51:26] incident? I think August 11th is when

[3:51:29] some schedule changes happened. I'm

[3:51:30] curious about that, or if you have

[3:51:32] looked at it and put it aside as this

[3:51:34] is not a factor? I didn't hear that

[3:51:37] being discussed. And then the second

[3:51:41] thing is just looking at where the

[3:51:42] incidents happened is very much in that

[3:51:45] particular area. And that particular

[3:51:47] area does see from my understanding,

[3:51:50] the most amount of train traffic

[3:51:52] compared to any other part of the

[3:51:55] system. So I'm also just curious if

[3:51:56] you had any kind of control sample

[3:52:01] where that is comparable -- where it

[3:52:05] may not exactly there, but somewhere

[3:52:07] else that seems the same train traffic

[3:52:09] and can be tested in any way? As a

[3:52:19] layperson, the schedule change and that

[3:52:22] particular Section and in the load flow

[3:52:24] analysis that you are doing is that

[3:52:26] something that you will consider or

[3:52:28] plans to consider or has it been put

[3:52:30] aside?

[3:52:31] >> That is absolutely a good question.

[3:52:32] We did look at schedule change and the

[3:52:34] impact and also one of the things that

[3:52:37] we asked for, and did review is for

[3:52:41] instance on the 8/29 incident in the

[3:52:45] afternoon, to look at all of the trains

[3:52:47] and the car, the number of cars and

[3:52:51] where they were just past West Oakland

[3:52:53] and past civic center on a map to see

[3:52:55] where they were and the configuration?

[3:52:57] We also compared that to exactly the

[3:53:01] way the system looked a month earlier

[3:53:02] to see how many cars and see if there

[3:53:04] was anything? And there was nothing

[3:53:06] mind blowing out of there, but when we

[3:53:07] do the modeling to put in the

[3:53:13] train cars and whether they are

[3:53:16] accelerating or decelerating and the

[3:53:18] negative return if anything come out of

[3:53:20] that is one of the values of that.

[3:53:22] >> I appreciate that. I would have

[3:53:23] loved it to be one of these sort of

[3:53:25] bullet points in that slide because I

[3:53:31] think it's so specific to where it

[3:53:33] happened, that addressing that will be

[3:53:34] important to us and understanding the

[3:53:37] entire system. Thank you so much.

[3:53:41] >> Thank you. Director Flores.

[3:53:44] >> Thank you for the presentation. I

[3:53:47] just want to begin by stating that I

[3:53:51] think what has been clearly said, but

[3:53:53] want to re-emphasize it our customer

[3:53:56] and taxpayers deserve transparency

[3:53:58] accountability and quality service and

[3:53:59] this presentation is part of that

[3:54:01] process. I believe that having an

[3:54:03] outside group investigate these

[3:54:04] incidents to provide an outside and

[3:54:07] non-biased perspective is important,

[3:54:09] just to make sure we're not missing

[3:54:12] anything. And while more analysis work

[3:54:15] needs to be done, it's important that

[3:54:17] we have that information early right

[3:54:19] now, so that we can share that out with

[3:54:22] the public. And glad this is not --

[3:54:24] it's not a final report. We're

[3:54:26] expecting that to come back. So that

[3:54:29] we can have more concrete information

[3:54:33] that is taking place. So just with

[3:54:36] that being said, I do want to thank you

[3:54:38] all for next steps and for making sure

[3:54:41] that we get more details on that. And

[3:54:43] sharing that out. But I do have a few

[3:54:47] follow-up questions. I was curious

[3:54:53] about the fuses and that show

[3:54:57] non-standard failure. Do we have

[3:55:02] suspected cause for non-standard

[3:55:03] failure or is it still something that

[3:55:05] is too early to tell?

[3:55:07] >> We're currently investigating that,

[3:55:08] and this is why we have recommended

[3:55:10] further testing.

[3:55:11] >> Okay. Thank you. And then just on

[3:55:16] the paddles, just so I'm understanding

[3:55:18] correctly. What it sounds like is that

[3:55:20] the paddles are designed to break as a

[3:55:23] safety function. So if that does happen

[3:55:28] , could be associated with some of the

[3:55:31] other causes the paddle breaking in in

[3:55:35] and of itself would not necessarily be

[3:55:37] the cause of arcing, blown cover,

[3:55:39] anything like that; right? Is that

[3:55:41] what I'm hearing?

[3:55:43] >> So we've looked extensively at the

[3:55:45] paddle loss and we have data on that.

[3:55:48] There's a loss of analysis done on the

[3:55:53] vehicles, vehicle log and certainly

[3:56:00] included in that analysis. A number of

[3:56:04] factors coming together, unusual

[3:56:06] circumstances, if you like. And it

[3:56:08] certainly has not been ruled out, but

[3:56:09] it's part of the analysis.

[3:56:12] >> Okay. That is helpful for me to

[3:56:19] know. And I just want to make sure

[3:56:21] that one of the things that I feel

[3:56:24] Director Ames is saying, and she can

[3:56:26] correct me if I'm wrong later is that

[3:56:30] potentially the insulators may be the

[3:56:31] root cause of some of these issues, but

[3:56:34] what I'm seeing in this presentation,

[3:56:36] and what I'm hearing is that rather

[3:56:39] than insulators being the cause of

[3:56:43] these issues, it is these other whether

[3:56:47] environmental, human, all of these

[3:56:50] other issues could be the potential

[3:56:53] causing factors for the insulators

[3:56:57] being blown or some cases not being

[3:56:59] blown rather than the insulators being

[3:57:02] the cause; right?

[3:57:03] >> That is correct. This appears to

[3:57:05] be in some cases an underlying factor

[3:57:10] and perhaps the insulators may be more

[3:57:14] vulnerable to failure because of the

[3:57:16] condition, but that doesn't mean they

[3:57:18] are the root cause.

[3:57:19] >> I think it's important for me to

[3:57:23] understand, just because there's nine,

[3:57:27] eight, seven separate incidents with

[3:57:30] potentially different contributing

[3:57:31] causes. I did like what Director Ames

[3:57:34] said about narrowing it down per

[3:57:38] incident to see. Because there might

[3:57:41] not be that one single cause and

[3:57:45] understanding what happened would be

[3:57:47] helpful. So that is all I wanted to

[3:57:49] clarify, just to make sure that I was

[3:57:51] on the same page with all of you.

[3:57:53] Because it sounded like there was a lot

[3:57:55] of back and forth -- there was a lot of

[3:57:57] back and forth and I just wanted to

[3:57:59] make sure that I understand what you

[3:58:03] were all saying.

[3:58:05] >> Director Flores, even though you

[3:58:08] didn't ask the question, will be a

[3:58:10] final report in the format as well.

[3:58:13] You saw that one incident that we laid

[3:58:15] out that showed the insulators, we'll

[3:58:18] do a similar diagram for every single

[3:58:19] incident, so will you have that. Once

[3:58:22] again, once we get to the final report

[3:58:24] stage will include that for every

[3:58:25] single incident

[3:58:27] .

[3:58:28] >> That will be great and thank you

[3:58:29] all for outlining the next step and

[3:58:32] moving forward so quickly. I think

[3:58:35] that is it for me right now and look

[3:58:37] forward to getting more information at

[3:58:38] a later point. Thank you.

[3:58:40] >> Thank you. President Hernandez.

[3:58:42] Followed by Director Li.

[3:58:45] >> Thank you. Sylvia you and I spoke

[3:58:48] yesterday with regards to what was

[3:58:50] going to be in discussion today. And

[3:58:52] the one thing that I see BART has been

[3:58:55] a system for over 50 years and the one

[3:58:57] item that was brought

[3:59:02] was the checks and balances and making

[3:59:05] sure that each Director in

[3:59:06] charge of

[3:59:08] whether an item to make sure we're

[3:59:19] being proactive. I know we cannot know

[3:59:22] every incident that is going to happen.

[3:59:24] But it's our due diligence to make

[3:59:28] sure there's communication. And going

[3:59:31] back and making sure that each item is

[3:59:35] checked off. And when I say that, when

[3:59:40] a pilot gets into the cockpit, his

[3:59:43] responsibility is to make sure

[3:59:46] everything is checked off before he

[3:59:48] moves the plane forward and if

[3:59:49] something is not correct, then

[3:59:51] maintenance comes in. They fix the

[3:59:53] problem, and move on or they actually

[3:59:56] cancel the flight and so on. So what

[3:59:59] I'm seeing from our discussion a little

[4:00:02] bit is making sure that each Director

[4:00:05] is responsible for checking off that

[4:00:08] list. And I just want to make sure

[4:00:11] it's clear that each Director for each

[4:00:15] Department moving forward understands

[4:00:17] that. Whether it's making sure there's

[4:00:20] more check-offs, making sure that our

[4:00:22] General Manager gets the last word.

[4:00:25] Can you just clarify how we're going to

[4:00:27] do that moving forward?

[4:00:29] >> Well, I think it's a combination.

[4:00:35] What Shane's direction to his Staff and

[4:00:38] his maintenance Department. I think

[4:00:40] there's also from a higher-level

[4:00:43] there's -- we need to put into place a

[4:00:46] Change Control Board that has safety,

[4:00:48] has a General Manager, has the AGM of

[4:00:54] Operations signing off and potentially

[4:00:55] the OID if it's a construction project

[4:00:58] versus a maintenance project. So I

[4:01:01] think you know, in initial

[4:01:03] conversations with our Chief Safety

[4:01:04] Officer, what he talked about is a

[4:01:07] Change Control Board basically. So I

[4:01:09] think what we'd have to do is use maybe

[4:01:13] our asset risk register to identify

[4:01:16] criticality of assets which already

[4:01:17] know what that is and I think we need

[4:01:19] to put a set of criteria that says if

[4:01:24] this changes, in this configuration,

[4:01:27] you are not allowed to make that change

[4:01:29] without signoff and BART has tons of

[4:01:31] processes that require us to do system

[4:01:35] access requests, or site -- what is

[4:01:39] that? Site-specific Work Plans that

[4:01:41] have to get into place months before we

[4:01:43] do the work. So we can tack it onto

[4:01:45] that process that says this person has

[4:01:47] to sign off before we can move forward.

[4:01:49] And I think in some of those cases

[4:01:51] that insides to be escalated up, and

[4:01:54] again, part of that has to be what are

[4:01:57] you going to do at the end? How you

[4:01:58] are going to put that back in place?

[4:02:04] And again as Shane said, maintenance is

[4:02:06] there first and last and there needs to

[4:02:08] be something to trigger the signoff

[4:02:10] through maintenance or the contractor

[4:02:12] that says that work has been completed.

[4:02:14] >> President Hernandez, just to add

[4:02:17] what she is saying more directly, you

[4:02:21] know, this accountability, and however

[4:02:22] you want to frame it, the check-off,

[4:02:25] the pilot, and checking that. Those

[4:02:27] folks that you are talking about, those

[4:02:31] "pilots" are in this room right now.

[4:02:33] That is why Michael brought them in.

[4:02:36] It's Mike Gibson and Derek Calhoun

[4:02:38] and Leo Pica, Jeff Lau and Myat

[4:02:45] San and those that are responsible for

[4:02:47] elements in the system and that

[4:02:49] checklist, that check off list, that is

[4:02:52] their world. So having them here that

[4:02:57] comment from you, it is very powerful,

[4:03:00] because that kind of accountability is

[4:03:03] what we need to get to what Director

[4:03:05] Ghosh was talking about. About

[4:03:07] improving the system, improving the

[4:03:11] reliabilities for our riders and

[4:03:13] couldn't agree more.

[4:03:14] >> Thank you. I just bring that

[4:03:15] forward because in a City, I always

[4:03:17] revert back to the City, we tend to do

[4:03:19] that; right? We want to make sure

[4:03:23] that before we have something that

[4:03:24] needs to be fixed, because it's age,

[4:03:26] that we want to bring it forward in

[4:03:29] enough time. So that we can beat that

[4:03:32] time-lapse. So just wanted to make

[4:03:33] sure that we're all on the same vision

[4:03:37] of moving forward, and I do appreciate

[4:03:40] the thorough report.

[4:03:42] >> Thank you. Director Li.

[4:03:43] >> I have really brief comments here.

[4:03:47] So my colleagues have said so much and

[4:03:49] to associate myself with the comments

[4:03:51] to thank Staff and third-quarter party

[4:03:53] consultants at Parsons for the

[4:03:54] extensive investigation and

[4:03:55] particularly want to associate myself

[4:03:57] with Director Wright's comments. Look,

[4:03:59] we have been at this conversation for

[4:04:03] what two hours now? That is such a

[4:04:07] tiny fraction of near 15,000 hours that

[4:04:13] went into the investigation and no one

[4:04:15] this Board, love you all, my

[4:04:17] colleagues, no one on this Board are

[4:04:20] subject-matter experts and certainly

[4:04:23] we're not subject-matter experts on the

[4:04:24] breadth of knowledge needed to

[4:04:26] unravel the situations that had

[4:04:27] happened, which is why we bring in

[4:04:30] third-party consultants which amongst

[4:04:31] all of your people, you all can figure

[4:04:33] this out. We're not going to figure

[4:04:35] this out. We're not going to just go

[4:04:37] into your grab bag of brainstorm idea

[4:04:40] and have you looked at this? You have.

[4:04:42] You have done 15,000 hours of looking

[4:04:46] at stuff and we're not going to do that

[4:04:48] in two hours and not smart enough to do

[4:04:53] in two hours. What is really, really

[4:04:56] important is BART is safe for our

[4:04:58] riders and we know that BART is safe

[4:05:00] for our riders, because born out of our

[4:05:02] data, you can see that in our Quarterly

[4:05:05] Service Performance Reviews. I looked

[4:05:06] at our latest one that you presented

[4:05:08] back in December cover Q1, July,

[4:05:13] August and September. Which includes a

[4:05:15] few of the incidents that you

[4:05:20] investigated. We have point .14

[4:05:23] vehicles per million riders when

[4:05:26] looking at passenger safety number

[4:05:27] and give or take about a million rides per

[4:05:29] week in our system. So you can see how

[4:05:33] incredibly rare passenger safety

[4:05:35] incidents on our trains occur. That

[4:05:38] puts BART as one of the safety transit

[4:05:41] system in our country and that is in

[4:05:44] the data. That we report to the FTA

[4:05:47] regularly. And that we present to the

[4:05:51] public quarterly. BART is a damn safe

[4:05:54] system. So thank you for those

[4:05:57] efforts. With all that said, and

[4:06:02] echoing what Director Wright said,

[4:06:05] that's the perception of our system that

[4:06:06] make a difference for our riders in

[4:06:08] trusting us as a government agency, and

[4:06:14] trusting us believing beyond just the

[4:06:16] numbers that we're the safety system.

[4:06:18] And I think this investigation, these

[4:06:21] man hours, this deeper look and

[4:06:23] ultimately what will become a final

[4:06:26] full report is that level of

[4:06:28] transparency we need to give

[4:06:29] credibility to the work that you have

[4:06:31] all done, that Parsons has done to

[4:06:36] ensure we remain safe and we're

[4:06:38] proactive and building in your

[4:06:40] protocols every step of our

[4:06:42] construction projects every step of our

[4:06:43] State of Good Repair work that we're

[4:06:46] doing everything right. We're being

[4:06:48] proactive and we're preventing further

[4:06:51] incidents from occurring. That keep

[4:06:53] our system running. So I will end my

[4:06:55] comments there. Thank you so much.

[4:06:57] >> Thank you, Director Li. Let me ask

[4:07:01] a few questions, or provide a few

[4:07:02] comments before we wrap up. First off,

[4:07:06] thank you. Honesty and transparency

[4:07:08] are critical in government, and so you

[4:07:10] coming to us today, and identifying

[4:07:12] some areas where we have some gaps that

[4:07:16] we can fix is important. That does

[4:07:20] build our reputation in the area that

[4:07:24] folks that we care about ridership. I

[4:07:27] will also be clear that when BART has

[4:07:30] an issue, it isn't just BART passengers

[4:07:32] impacted, but it's the entire Bay Area

[4:07:34] and traffic throughout the Bay Area is

[4:07:37] greatly impacted when we aren't able to

[4:07:40] provide service. So the world is much

[4:07:42] larger than the ridership that we live

[4:07:44] in today. So I look at this as a

[4:07:47] learning opportunity. This is a chance

[4:07:49] for us as an agency to identify what we

[4:07:52] see as challenges that we can address

[4:07:56] and understand what are some of the

[4:07:57] challenges that we may not yet be

[4:07:59] seeing? I so welcome this and I think

[4:08:01] it's ultimately in the best interest of

[4:08:04] BART and the greater Bay Area. With

[4:08:06] that said, did we look at other

[4:08:14] electrified railways? Are we unique in

[4:08:16] it sense or something that other

[4:08:17] agencies have experienced and did we

[4:08:22] gain anything from that?

[4:08:24] >> Yes, we have looked at other

[4:08:26] systems, and many team members, and

[4:08:32] SMEs and technical specialists have

[4:08:34] direct experience working for those

[4:08:36] other agencies not just myself, but

[4:08:37] other Members of the Team have worked

[4:08:39] for New York City Transit, and other

[4:08:42] agencies. So that data point, those

[4:08:44] data points are there. I think it's

[4:08:47] too early to say right now, but based

[4:08:51] on our understanding and our analysis

[4:08:54] these circumstances appear to be quite

[4:08:56] unique to this system.

[4:08:57] >> Thank you. We have been told BART

[4:09:00] is unique many times before. So

[4:09:03] understood. As part of this sort of

[4:09:05] data analyses, did we bring in Alstom,

[4:09:11] the folks that take care of our trains?

[4:09:13] The creators of our trains to give us

[4:09:17] some SME feedback?

[4:09:19] >> Chair, sorry about that, we have

[4:09:21] not brought them in yet. We wanted to

[4:09:24] do this completely independent. As far

[4:09:25] as that review , but we do plan to

[4:09:30] bring them in moving forward.

[4:09:32] >> Based on what I'm hearing today, I

[4:09:34] think it's critical that we bring in

[4:09:35] our train manufacturer to look at are

[4:09:37] there any contributes issues or

[4:09:39] potential causes? So I think that

[4:09:41] would be critical for us to do. And

[4:09:42] kind of speaking to that issue, do we

[4:09:47] capture any undercarriage video?

[4:09:48] Because I think we should explore that

[4:09:50] if we don't?

[4:09:51] >> We don't right now. But it is one

[4:09:53] of the recommendations from the team.

[4:09:56] There's different reasons why we

[4:09:57] haven't done that. But definitely

[4:09:59] something we can talk to the Chief

[4:10:02] Mechanical Officer.

[4:10:05] >> All right. To me it's another data

[4:10:08] point and another potential piece of

[4:10:11] the puzzle to identify some of these

[4:10:14] challenges. Lastly, I know you

[4:10:17] mentioned rail grinding vehicles and

[4:10:19] not necessarily being a root cause, but

[4:10:22] could be a contributing factor. Have

[4:10:24] we thought about -- I know at home,

[4:10:27] with your sanding, some of your tools

[4:10:34] have a vac built into it, so the dust is

[4:10:37] captured as you are grinding. Is we

[4:10:43] looked at retrofitting those as we're

[4:10:44] grinding?

[4:10:45] >> Directors, we have two rail grinders

[4:10:47] that have vacuum system on them with

[4:10:50] two collector cars. They collect as

[4:10:53] much of the spoil and not micro dust,

[4:10:57] but dust that it can. And then the

[4:10:59] other thing that we're talking about,

[4:11:03] when we're talking about metal dust is

[4:11:10] the rear wheel interface, which is not

[4:11:13] picked up by the grinder every night.

[4:11:17] Because the wheels won't get newer and

[4:11:19] we have that dilemma as well.

[4:11:21] >> Understood. Well, maybe we need a

[4:11:26] vacuum truck to run around the system.

[4:11:27] With that I will conclude my feedback

[4:11:30] and the E&O agenda items, I will turn

[4:11:32] it back over to President Hernandez.

[4:11:34] >> Thank you, Directors.

[4:11:37] >> Thank you

[4:11:42] >> Thank you. Our Item No. 8 is our

[4:11:44] Planning, Public Affairs, Access and

[4:11:48] Legislation item. And Chaired by Chair

[4:11:54] Raburn.

[4:12:12] >> We'll plough on through the

[4:12:16] Planning, Public Affairs, Access and

[4:12:17] Legislation and we have one item to

[4:12:19] discuss, and it's the -- ?

[4:12:20] >> Excuse me, can you please take out

[4:12:23] any conversation outside of this room.

[4:12:25] >> Continue your conversation outside,

[4:12:29] and the one item for approval is the

[4:12:34] goals and objectives for the Fremont

[4:12:39] station Transit-Oriented Development

[4:12:40] project. Each of the Directors have a

[4:12:43] letter from the City of Fremont's

[4:12:48] Community Development Director, or

[4:12:50] signed by the development Director.

[4:12:52] It's a very supportive letter. And I

[4:12:55] want to share that I'm excited about

[4:12:59] this project and I hope we can move

[4:13:03] right along with getting everybody's

[4:13:05] input into those goals and objectives

[4:13:10] without delay. Thank you.

[4:13:11] >> Thank you, Director Raburn, we're

[4:13:13] excited about this project as well. So

[4:13:15] we're here to get approval today on the

[4:13:17] goals and objectives for the Fremont

[4:13:20] TOD. Our Staff has worked with

[4:13:23] stakeholders in the City to take the

[4:13:26] Board adopted TOD goals and develop

[4:13:29] specific project objectivities. So we

[4:13:30] have Matt Lewis, our Principal property

[4:13:36] Vermont and Kamala Park our Principal

[4:13:38] planner on station planning and I will

[4:13:41] hand it to Kasheica, our Director of TOD.

[4:13:45] >> Good afternoon, Directors. Before I

[4:13:47] hand it over to Matt and Kamala to work

[4:13:51] through the presentation to say why

[4:13:53] Fremont is such a great TOD

[4:13:55] opportunity. The station opened in the

[4:13:57] early 70s. And for 45 years served as

[4:14:02] a major access point into the BART

[4:14:05] system and in 2017, when the Warms

[4:14:08] Springs station opened, it was no

[4:14:10] longer a huge demand for parking at the

[4:14:12] Fremont station.

[4:14:13] >> Can you pull the mic a little

[4:14:16] closer?

[4:14:17] >> Okay. So there was no longer a

[4:14:20] huge demand for parking as there had

[4:14:22] been in the past at Fremont statement

[4:14:24] with the opening of the Warms Springs

[4:14:26] station. So with close to 2,000

[4:14:28] parking spaces with less than 30% now

[4:14:32] being utilized, we think that the

[4:14:33] Fremont station can be very

[4:14:39] thoughtfully developed to create

[4:14:42] residential housing, walkable

[4:14:43] amenities, and stronger ridership base.

[4:14:44] So now I will turn it over to Matt and

[4:14:49] Kamala to work you through the details

[4:14:52] of goals and objectives for the TOD,

[4:14:55] which we worked very closely with our

[4:14:58] City partners and the community to

[4:15:01] attain these goals. Turn it over.

[4:15:03] >> Good afternoon, Directors. Thank

[4:15:04] you for your time and attention on

[4:15:06] Fremont TOD goals and objectives,

[4:15:11] reviewing the site, station access and

[4:15:13] planning efforts to-date and dive into

[4:15:15] the goals and the objectives and the

[4:15:19] community engagement done so far and

[4:15:21] proceed to next steps and a motion.

[4:15:30] Back in 2024 the parking stations

[4:15:34] development for the site and we have

[4:15:36] largely confirmed the advantages that

[4:15:39] were previously identified. For one,

[4:15:41] the parking lots are an expansive 23

[4:15:47] gross acres. Sizeable for a

[4:15:50] large-scale development and positioned

[4:15:51] for development through state and local

[4:15:54] policy including AB 2923 and the City

[4:15:56] of Fremont's zoning standards that

[4:15:58] allow up to 12 stories for most of

[4:16:01] the site. City also identified in its

[4:16:03] most recent housing element and we

[4:16:05] closely coordinated with City of

[4:16:07] Fremont Planning and transportation

[4:16:08] Staff and given an opportunity to

[4:16:10] comment and contribute to the goals

[4:16:13] and objectives statement. Finally, the

[4:16:14] rider parking lots have low

[4:16:16] utilization, which creates the

[4:16:18] opportunity to use a portion of rider

[4:16:20] parking lot for TOD, and avoid the

[4:16:22] expense and complication of building a

[4:16:25] BART rider garage to replace the lost

[4:16:29] Park and Kamala will explain more of

[4:16:33] that in a moment. We have conducted

[4:16:37] several due diligence studies on the

[4:16:38] site. The most important study done to

[4:16:41] identify the location of the Hayward

[4:16:45] fault. Fortunately the area was

[4:16:48] heavily study for the Warms Springs

[4:16:51] extension and able to utilize the study

[4:16:54] as shown in the image to the right. In

[4:16:56] response to the research we decided to

[4:16:58] exclude the areas that are closest to

[4:17:01] the fault from the developer

[4:17:03] solicitation that we're proposing to do

[4:17:05] this year. We also conducted market

[4:17:07] research with real estate developers

[4:17:09] and heard that major office and retail

[4:17:12] developments not viable here, but high

[4:17:15] density residential is. And several

[4:17:17] developers suggested dividing up the

[4:17:19] site into different phases to reduce

[4:17:24] their risk exposure and we contacted

[4:17:27] the nearby Hospital facilities to see

[4:17:28] if they are interested and they are not

[4:17:30] currently looking for additional land

[4:17:32] for expansion. We closely studied the

[4:17:34] station access conditions here, which I

[4:17:35] will hand over to Kamala to explain.

[4:17:43] >> Thank you, Matt. So Fremont

[4:17:49] station folks get there by a variety of

[4:17:51] modes, but the most important thing in

[4:17:53] this chart is that driving and parking

[4:17:56] has been reducing as a share of the

[4:18:00] riders who get there. For example,

[4:18:03] looking at the most current 2024 data,

[4:18:07] 40% get there without a car while

[4:18:10] nearly 30% are dropped off and less

[4:18:13] than 34% drive and Park. You may

[4:18:17] already be aware that BART's 2016

[4:18:21] station access policy set five

[4:18:24] different station access typologies.

[4:18:28] From urban to auto-dependent partially

[4:18:29] based on the share of riders would

[4:18:31] drive. This station is currently

[4:18:35] intermodal auto reliant, but with TOD

[4:18:37] it's expected to become balanced

[4:18:39] intermodal as the share of riders who

[4:18:40] drive to the station decreases. Even

[4:18:43] without the TOD the Fremont station is

[4:18:46] already in the balanced intermodal

[4:18:50] share. The TOD will change access to

[4:18:53] the station with the expectation that

[4:18:57] less riders will drive and Park and

[4:18:59] thankfully Fremont has being

[4:19:02] diligently transforming their streets

[4:19:03] to prioritize safety and accessibility

[4:19:07] for all. Three City-led infrastructure

[4:19:08] projects to improve walking and biking

[4:19:10] within a mile of this Fremont station

[4:19:15] received safe routes to BART funding.

[4:19:17] The City of Fremont has implemented

[4:19:23] many roadway projects citywide, like

[4:19:25] the one around the station as part of

[4:19:27] their Vision Zero program. Their

[4:19:29] annual rate of traffic fatalities is

[4:19:32] three, whereas the nation, state and

[4:19:36] Bay Area cities range from 4-13

[4:19:39] fatalities per 100,000 people. This

[4:19:41] means that our riders are getting --

[4:19:43] are getting to our stations safer, and

[4:19:47] doesn't matter what mode of travel they

[4:19:50] are using. The Fremont station as

[4:19:54] Kasheica mentioned was built with 1900

[4:19:59] space because it was end-of-line until

[4:20:02] 2017. Parking demand in the

[4:20:04] foreseeable future will not require more

[4:20:07] than 740 spaces. The first three rows

[4:20:10] show how Tuesday through Thursday

[4:20:12] parking occupancies have been trending

[4:20:17] down since 2015 to 29% currently. The

[4:20:21] last row shows expected ridership based

[4:20:23] on BART's financial projections, and

[4:20:25] associated parking demand in 2038.

[4:20:28] This assumes that Core Capacity

[4:20:32] Program, and VTA's BART extension to

[4:20:34] Santa Clara are fully operation by

[4:20:36] then. You can see that parking demand

[4:20:38] would be at most 740 spaces, less than

[4:20:41] half of the 1900 spaces. Now back to

[4:20:45] Matt.

[4:20:49] >> Thanks Kamala. On the right of the

[4:20:52] slide an overview of the general

[4:20:54] process of developing TOD of so right

[4:20:55] now we're proposing to move from step

[4:20:58] 1, pre-solicitation planning to step 2,

[4:21:00] develop solicitation and goals and

[4:21:02] objectives is the vehicle for doing

[4:21:04] that. As the high-level parameters of

[4:21:05] the TOD project and will be included in

[4:21:09] the solicitation for developer. The

[4:21:11] goals and objectives statement is shaped

[4:21:13] around the goals for the overall TOD

[4:21:14] program, which were adopted by the

[4:21:16] Board in 2020. And are listed here in

[4:21:19] the third bullet. The objectives for

[4:21:21] each goal is how tailoring the goals to

[4:21:24] the particular condition and

[4:21:25] aspirations for the Fremont TOD. It's

[4:21:37] not operating. Something is wrong with

[4:21:38] the clicker here -- there we go. These

[4:21:42] next two slides have the Board adopted

[4:21:45] goals and key objectives for Fremont

[4:21:48] TOD. We're highlighting them, the main

[4:21:52] ones here. And these are the three

[4:21:59] remaining goals and their main

[4:22:02] objectives. In addition to the

[4:22:03] affordability goal we're proposing the

[4:22:07] City of Fremont's inclusionary zoning

[4:22:08] policy also applies to the TOD, which

[4:22:11] call for a portion of the project to

[4:22:14] have middle-income housing in some

[4:22:17] cases as well. We put out a draft of

[4:22:22] the objective statement for public

[4:22:24] feedback. We held open houses at

[4:22:26] Fremont station and survey open for

[4:22:29] weeks, and we got a lot of great

[4:22:35] feedback on how to design TOD and

[4:22:38] parking and affordable levels as well

[4:22:39] and covered in the local news. The

[4:22:47] next few slides height the important

[4:22:49] objective proposing of the first up to

[4:22:51] divide the parking lots into two phases

[4:22:53] for development and leave out a

[4:22:54] substantial portion that is

[4:22:56] undevelopable due to the presence of

[4:22:57] the Hayward fault and the first phase

[4:23:00] shown in yellow, undevelopable area is

[4:23:01] shown in red, and the second phase is

[4:23:04] shown in purple. First phase we're

[4:23:06] proposing to do a developer

[4:23:08] solicitation for this year. And it

[4:23:10] will include eight acres and primarily

[4:23:11] consist of housing and ground floor

[4:23:14] retail, which is consistent with the

[4:23:16] City's zoning. So advantages on this

[4:23:18] phasing approach at first reserves

[4:23:20] enough parking spaces for existing and

[4:23:23] foreseeable demand. That means no

[4:23:26] replacement parking garage is necessary for

[4:23:28] the first phase to proceed in full and

[4:23:30] second, it's responsive to developer

[4:23:31] feedback that the site would attract

[4:23:33] more interest if divided up, and third,

[4:23:34] it gives us time on phase 2 to wait for

[4:23:37] market conditions for conducive for

[4:23:43] development. I will hand it back to

[4:23:45] Kamalu.

[4:23:47] >> Public feedback we received

[4:23:49] stated concern about the BART

[4:23:50] loss of parking for TOD phase 1

[4:23:55] retaining 700 parking spaces on-site,

[4:23:57] 430 near Washington Hospital, where TOD

[4:23:59] phase 2 would be located and 250 were

[4:24:05] the Hayward earthquake fault prevents

[4:24:06] development. There's also a 30-space

[4:24:08] parking lot under the track near

[4:24:10] Mallory that could be re-opened if

[4:24:14] needed. Riders who drive may opt to

[4:24:16] Park at Union City and Warms

[4:24:18] Springs/South Fremont stations which

[4:24:22] also have underutilized parking lots.

[4:24:24] Parking demand will be revisited before

[4:24:27] pursuing solicitation for TOD phrase 2,

[4:24:28] along with strategies to accommodate it

[4:24:31] by investigating options for on-site

[4:24:34] surface podium and garage parking, and

[4:24:38] off-site on-streets, and in private

[4:24:39] lots where BART riders could be allowed

[4:24:42] to pay to Park. Improving walking and

[4:24:45] biking in and around the station area

[4:24:48] was also a frequent comment from

[4:24:51] community members, and that aligns with

[4:24:56] our adopted policies. Many community

[4:25:00] members were real excited about the

[4:25:02] potential development. They want the

[4:25:05] Fremont station TOD to create a "dense

[4:25:09] intensive an active focal point for the

[4:25:12] entire City Center."

[4:25:15] That was articulated from the 2015

[4:25:18] Community Plan. The current zoning of

[4:25:20] BART land is City Center Transit

[4:25:22] Neighborhood, this is mostly

[4:25:24] high-density residential with some

[4:25:27] small-scale services and retail. The

[4:25:30] two-phased approach to development

[4:25:31] would allow us to advance mostly

[4:25:33] housing on the Northeast side while

[4:25:35] keeping that West side available for

[4:25:37] non-residential options in the future.

[4:25:40] We refined the objectives under

[4:25:45] complete community goals to emphasize

[4:25:48] recreation and socializing

[4:25:49] opportunities with the caveat that

[4:25:51] non-residential components are

[4:25:53] dependent on market feasibility, and

[4:25:55] what the selected developer team

[4:25:57] proposes. Now I will hand it back to

[4:25:58] Matt to wrap it up.

[4:26:06] >> Thank you Kamala. First we request

[4:26:09] that the Board approve the proposed

[4:26:11] goals and objectives statement and if

[4:26:13] approved BART Staff will issue a

[4:26:18] solicitation for developer. For

[4:26:19] summer 2026 to return to the Board

[4:26:22] for development partner and authority to enter

[4:26:24] into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement

[4:26:25] with them and then BART Staff and

[4:26:27] developer will negotiate a term sheet

[4:26:29] and return to the Board with terms and

[4:26:33] construction would start as early as a

[4:26:35] year after that. Thank you for your

[4:26:37] time and interest. We're happy to take

[4:26:41] your questions and to proceed to the

[4:26:46] slide with the motion.

[4:26:47] >> Thank you, we have the best Staff.

[4:26:48] Do we have any public comments?

[4:26:51] >> We have one, Glen Overton. Glen.

[4:27:12] >> Madam President, and Staff. I'm

[4:27:22] for any housing development on BART

[4:27:30] land. TOD, Transit-Oriented

[4:27:37] Development is not just a fad, it's a

[4:27:40] need. We need TOD, so we don't turn

[4:27:48] out like Los Angeles and burn every

[4:27:51] damn thing down. People need to live

[4:27:56] close to their transit to have

[4:28:01] transit-friendly and community-friendly

[4:28:02] access.

[4:28:05] To have a choice between leaving the

[4:28:10] car parked, walking, accessing culture,

[4:28:22] and their environment, providing for

[4:28:24] their children and working and just

[4:28:27] living life the way life should be led.

[4:28:37] Accessible housing, transit is

[4:28:44] optimal, thoughtful, necessary. Thank

[4:28:45] you.

[4:28:48] >> Thank you, Glen. Any other -- no

[4:28:53] further public speakers. The Chair

[4:28:55] likes to speak last. I would like to

[4:28:59] hear from Director Ames first, whose

[4:29:03] District this project is in. Again,

[4:29:05] our goal is to get to approval of a

[4:29:08] motion.

[4:29:09] >> Thank you, Director Raburn. Thank

[4:29:11] you, Staff. You did a great job. I'm

[4:29:17] very pleased. I went to a few Town

[4:29:19] Hall and I do appreciate that you want

[4:29:22] to reserve a portion of the site for

[4:29:25] potential commercial activity in the

[4:29:26] future and I'm all about the transit

[4:29:28] Village, but I don't want housing and a

[4:29:31] little retail, but jobs and housing

[4:29:33] balance. So I did meet with a hotel

[4:29:35] developer before COVID and they were

[4:29:37] interested in putting a hotel there

[4:29:38] because of all of the hospitals. It's

[4:29:41] not just Washington Hospital, but

[4:29:43] Kaiser and the Palo Alto Foundation is

[4:29:46] just about a mile-and-a-half away. So

[4:29:47] it's a great site. The County --

[4:29:51] Alameda County library is close by and

[4:29:54] it's a fantastic location to build

[4:29:56] housing at a dense rate. Hopefully we

[4:30:07] can get those standards. Fremont has a

[4:30:09] higher standard -- what is it? 12

[4:30:13] stories. Ours is 7 stories, and they

[4:30:17] have 12 stories.

[4:30:34] The intermodal standard BART placed on

[4:30:37] the side, but received so many grants

[4:30:41] and activated the Street. So much

[4:30:46] improvement. They had elevated with

[4:30:48] the sidewalk with the multimodal

[4:30:51] corridor, where they eliminated the

[4:30:52] right turn lane. So you have a huge

[4:30:59] multimodal corridor where cars have

[4:31:00] to wait at the light and turn when

[4:31:05] it's green. Because they took out the

[4:31:07] turn lane, it's a tremendous open area

[4:31:12] for biking and walking and using

[4:31:18] scooters. This multimodal corridor is

[4:31:24] also going to the High School. The

[4:31:26] site is a complete success. I'm

[4:31:30] excited. I guess I just had questions

[4:31:32] about the Hayward fault. My

[4:31:33] understanding with the Hayward fault,

[4:31:36] it does have a core fault and it's got

[4:31:39] transverse cracks and you can't build

[4:31:41] on the cracks. So I just want to make

[4:31:42] sure that the Staff has a good

[4:31:44] evaluation on that. Because I thought

[4:31:47] the Building Code didn't allow you to

[4:31:49] build on those -- it's not just a crack

[4:31:51] itself. The Hayward fault there's like

[4:31:54] 100' buffer from the fault. Then

[4:31:57] there's other cracks that go across the

[4:31:59] fault. So I just want to make sure you

[4:32:04] could follow-up on that. But

[4:32:07] essentially, having the mixed-use

[4:32:09] component next to the bus depot is

[4:32:16] tremendous. The only thing I wanted to

[4:32:17] see in addition to this is -- I hate to

[4:32:22] say it, but vendor activation in the

[4:32:26] station itself. A lot of people want

[4:32:28] to hang out inside the station and I

[4:32:30] know there's many Directors that want

[4:32:32] to activate our stations inside, and

[4:32:34] also outside. But inside, I know we

[4:32:37] keep resisting. I hope we can maybe --

[4:32:39] I don't know if that is a goal for the

[4:32:41] TOD? But I think it should be a goal

[4:32:44] for BART to consider ways to activate

[4:32:49] inside the station. So I also just

[4:32:52] after we were so excited about this

[4:32:54] project, I did talk to the City of

[4:32:56] Fremont and they are looking at similar

[4:32:59] to the Berryessa station, where we

[4:33:01] would connect the Fremont station to

[4:33:03] the Bay Area ridge trail and the Vargas

[4:33:06] plateau. It's not in the bike plan,

[4:33:08] but Fremont is taking the lead on that.

[4:33:10] So look at what happened to stimulate

[4:33:14] the community. They are really excited

[4:33:15] and I will move to approve these

[4:33:18] measures. Just one more thing about

[4:33:19] housing. I have one more comment. I

[4:33:22] do appreciate, Matt, that you brought

[4:33:24] up the missing middle-income housing

[4:33:27] element, which I guess you are saying

[4:33:30] Fremont has. So the middle-income

[4:33:34] bracket is 80% to 120% Area Median

[4:33:38] Income. So the City has a target, it's

[4:33:41] a little over 10%. And a lot of

[4:33:45] communities don't build housing. This

[4:33:47] is really the middle-income bracket.

[4:33:49] It doesn't get built. I hope this

[4:33:53] project does that, because it's very

[4:33:56] difficult to build. It just doesn't

[4:33:57] happen in the Bay Area. It's

[4:33:59] unfortunate. So I move to approve the

[4:34:03] TOD goals thank you.

[4:34:04] >> I will second.

[4:34:06] >> Thank you. We have a motion and a

[4:34:12] second. Director Foley.

[4:34:13] >> Thank you, Chair Raburn. First

[4:34:16] off, thank you for to the TOD team for

[4:34:19] bringing this to us today. I'm glad to

[4:34:24] hear that Director Ames supports this,

[4:34:26] because I also support this and it's

[4:34:28] good to know we're all on the same page

[4:34:30] here. I did have a couple of quick

[4:34:32] questions. Because it seemed odd you

[4:34:36] were bringing back objectives, which I

[4:34:38] hadn't really the past. So you are

[4:34:39] looking for us to approve what you laid

[4:34:42] out on slides 11, 12 and 13, is that

[4:34:44] correct? It's not a blanket approve of

[4:34:49] everything under the sun?

[4:34:52] >> The EDD included in the Board

[4:34:55] packet had an attachment with the full

[4:34:57] list of goals and objectives.

[4:35:01] >> Super. You will be coming back to

[4:35:03] us in the future for an update on phase

[4:35:06] 2 when we get there, and I assume phase

[4:35:08] 1 as we get into the ENA process and

[4:35:12] all of that good stuff? Super. Okay.

[4:35:27] The last point, concern I will raise,

[4:35:29] we're going to do a ground lease, how

[4:35:32] do we protect our investment when

[4:35:34] building so close to a fault? What I

[4:35:37] don't want is repeat of the Coliseum

[4:35:42] connection, where we have an act of God

[4:35:48] or natural disaster that displaced

[4:35:51] people for more than a year and had a

[4:35:55] less than willing partner in making the

[4:36:00] property something that people could --

[4:36:02] excuse me, return to? So I just want

[4:36:05] to know, are we looking at language,

[4:36:07] when we start looking at agreements on

[4:36:09] this? Where there is some sort of

[4:36:11] protection for this agency? If the --

[4:36:15] if -- whoever is going to operate this

[4:36:18] piece of property is not meeting their

[4:36:22] obligations?

[4:36:24] >> So as it relates to the proximity

[4:36:28] to the fault, and kind of the zone of

[4:36:31] influence of the default, there has

[4:36:36] been extensive studies and assessments

[4:36:39] done already and in addition to that,

[4:36:41] any developer developing on our sites

[4:36:43] have to comply with Building Code for

[4:36:45] the State, as it relates to the

[4:36:49] proximity or building anywhere near a

[4:36:51] fault. And to, of course, the local

[4:36:55] Building Codes, which are more strict

[4:36:57] than they were in the past. And

[4:37:02] Fremont is not unique to any other part

[4:37:04] of the Bay Area necessarily in its

[4:37:06] proximity to the fault. I understand

[4:37:09] that we just so happen to know where

[4:37:12] this one is exactly, but we have

[4:37:17] existing structures, and we will do

[4:37:19] additional assessment. The developer

[4:37:20] will do their own assessment to make

[4:37:23] sure that we are mitigating and

[4:37:28] limiting our risks.

[4:37:29] >> I just want to make sure that we're

[4:37:34] in a position where we're not exposed

[4:37:38] after something occurs? That is really

[4:37:40] what I'm most concerned about here is

[4:37:42] that exposure in limiting that? So I

[4:37:44] would argue that the Coliseum

[4:37:46] connection was built to building

[4:37:48] standards, and all of the above, but we

[4:37:51] still had an issue and problem that we

[4:37:55] had to resolve. I would like not to

[4:37:57] have that in future and have some

[4:37:59] language in any sort of agreement that

[4:38:01] gives us an out.

[4:38:04] >> Director Foley -- sorry I was going

[4:38:08] to call you President Foley, sore

[4:38:10] before I that President Hernandez.

[4:38:12] Both I and Michael and Kasheica are

[4:38:15] looking for opportunities to strengthen

[4:38:16] language had a may or may not have

[4:38:19] being in the Coliseum connection lease

[4:38:21] agreement. They are working with Jeana

[4:38:24] and Legal Counsel to make sure that

[4:38:32] BART is protected and airtight, so BART

[4:38:35] is protected and more importantly the

[4:38:36] residents of the community are

[4:38:38] protected. So the three of us are

[4:38:40] tight on that, and you know, and Jeana

[4:38:46] is with us on that concept.

[4:38:49] >> Thank you, I appreciate the words

[4:38:52] of support. Thank you. Tch thank you,

[4:39:00] Director Foley. Director Flores.

[4:39:01] >> Thank you so much for the

[4:39:02] presentation. I agree the site is

[4:39:05] primed for TOD development. I think

[4:39:06] that all the work that the City has

[4:39:08] done not only in rezoning and

[4:39:10] identifying this in their housing

[4:39:11] element, but also doing the Pedestrian

[4:39:15] and bike improvements in that area make

[4:39:18] this a perfect place. I am very happy

[4:39:22] that the City of Fremont has being a

[4:39:25] collaborative partner and you can see

[4:39:26] that I think in their capacity that

[4:39:28] they have zoned for this area. I'm

[4:39:31] supportive of this, but just curious if

[4:39:35] the middle-income housing program that

[4:39:39] they're expecting, or requiring would

[4:39:41] that be managed by the developer, by

[4:39:43] the City, or a low-income program that

[4:39:47] someone applies and you need income

[4:39:52] verification and the selection process,

[4:39:53] do you all know how that would work?

[4:39:57] >> So as far as getting into the

[4:40:00] details of the qualifications, or

[4:40:03] qualifying residents, and things like

[4:40:04] that we're not at that int we would be

[4:40:07] able to really speak with any certainty

[4:40:09] on how that process would go. But as

[4:40:13] far as having the 80-120% AMI as a

[4:40:16] goal, I think that would be something

[4:40:18] that we would have if the solicitation.

[4:40:20] And then we would have the developers

[4:40:24] come back, and basically do a proposal

[4:40:26] on how they might meet that goal.

[4:40:28] >> So the developers would be

[4:40:30] responsible for managing that. Okay.

[4:40:34] Thanks.

[4:40:35] >> Thank you very much. And Director

[4:40:39] Ghosh.

[4:40:40] >> I just wanted to express my support

[4:40:42] for the project. I think I just see

[4:40:46] the TOD at each station that we do

[4:40:50] really expanding access for our people

[4:40:54] who rely on BART. Fremont station used

[4:40:56] to be my home station in the sense I

[4:40:58] used to go from Berkeley to Fremont,

[4:41:00] because that is where my in-laws lived

[4:41:02] and now Warms Springs is closer to

[4:41:04] them. So I haven't been to the

[4:41:05] station, but it always felt like it's

[4:41:07] in the middle of nowhere and I still

[4:41:09] remember trying to ride my bike once

[4:41:11] from that station to their house, and

[4:41:16] it was a nightmare. So I think there's

[4:41:18] great potential here to develop

[4:41:20] housing, and almost to bring our

[4:41:24] communities closer. When you are only

[4:41:26] a BART ride away to visit someone who

[4:41:30] lives at a BART TOD and it's great to

[4:41:35] see that most of the goals that we have

[4:41:38] throughout our TOD listed objectives

[4:41:41] were aligned with that. It seems like

[4:41:43] with the City. And that you all have

[4:41:45] adjusted to make it more appropriate

[4:41:48] for what is site-specific, and

[4:41:51] community-specific. So I look forward

[4:41:52] to seeing where this goes, and I hope

[4:41:57] we can make even more of a place there

[4:42:00] with this project. Thank you for all

[4:42:06] the work.

[4:42:08] >> Any other Board Members? I will

[4:42:13] conclude then, and I have a few goals I

[4:42:16] want to underline that our existing

[4:42:21] policy for 35% affordable is the goal

[4:42:25] that we would seek on building housing

[4:42:30] at this site. Regarding recreation, of

[4:42:36] course, there's a ginormous Park

[4:42:42] nearby that will serve this area well.

[4:42:46] However, for preschoolers, tots, I

[4:42:49] think we'll need to plan for some tot

[4:42:53] lots adjacent to the Housing. So that

[4:42:58] it's very convenient. As well, access

[4:43:05] to Lake Elizabeth crosses a couple of

[4:43:10] major arterials that BART shows on our

[4:43:14] high injury network maps that are

[4:43:18] included in our safe trips to BART

[4:43:26] plan. Mallory, Mission, Fremont

[4:43:29] Boulevard, Paseo Padre, these require

[4:43:32] countermeasures. So specifically we

[4:43:33] want to get people safely from that

[4:43:38] phase 1 site to both Lake Elizabeth, as

[4:43:42] well as to the shopping in the central

[4:43:50] Central Park area. And so within the

[4:43:56] BART property, there is an internal

[4:44:00] Street that connects phase 1 over to the

[4:44:08] central toward The Paso Padre side of

[4:44:17] the station. So that I think need to

[4:44:20] be retained and prioritized for bike

[4:44:24] and Pedestrian travel. There will be

[4:44:26] increased demand to travel on that road

[4:44:32] from motor vehicles, and don't let it

[4:44:34] just happen, and then say oh, my gosh,

[4:44:37] what are we going to do to protect the

[4:44:40] bicyclists, or the pedestrians? So

[4:44:44] that has to be an essential component

[4:44:48] in order to get people from the new

[4:44:52] development out, because all of our

[4:44:54] Planning has mainly been to get people

[4:44:59] to the station, and back home from the

[4:45:03] station. So now we're planning with at

[4:45:08] least two different destinations, both

[4:45:11] the shopping. There's a rally's

[4:45:13] nearby, but there is also Walnut square

[4:45:20] -- or Walnut Plaza, which is a little

[4:45:24] bit beyond rally's and another high

[4:45:29] injury network to cross. So there's a

[4:45:32] couple of additional goals to add in,

[4:45:33] but I'm going to give my solid support

[4:45:36] on this, and I look forward to seeing

[4:45:39] the development proposals roll in.

[4:45:44] Let's hear from the District Secretary,

[4:45:46] would you please call the roll?

[4:45:48] >> Yes. Certainly. Director Ames?

[4:45:50] >> Yes.

[4:45:52] >> Director Flores?

[4:45:53] >> Aye.

[4:45:54] >> Director Foley?

[4:45:55] >> Aye.

[4:45:56] >> Director Ghosh?

[4:45:57] >> Yes.

[4:45:58] >> Director Li?

[4:45:59] >> Yes.

[4:46:00] >> Director Raburn?

[4:46:01] >> Yea.

[4:46:02] >> Director Rinn?

[4:46:03] >> Aye.

[4:46:04] >> Vice President Wright?

[4:46:05] >> Aye.

[4:46:06] >> President Hernandez?

[4:46:07] >> Aye.

[4:46:08] >> Motion passes unanimously.

[4:46:09] >> Thank you for your support everyone.

[4:46:12] >> You're welcome. That concludes the

[4:46:17] PPAAL Committee. Thank you, this moves

[4:46:23] us over to Item No. 9, which is our

[4:46:30] Board matters. Item A, any Board

[4:46:31] Member reports at this time?

[4:46:34] >> Yeah.

[4:46:36] >> Director Ames.

[4:46:38] >> Thank you. I thank Alicia and the

[4:46:43] Staff, we have a Super Bowl web page

[4:46:45] up and I talked to Alicia a lot about

[4:46:47] this, because I wanted to see more

[4:46:49] presentation on our website for the

[4:46:50] soccer game and we got Super Bowl

[4:46:54] coming. And I have been trying to

[4:46:58] contact Levi Stadium with no success. I

[4:47:00] just did it this morning, just trying

[4:47:02] to get them to put our BART link on the

[4:47:12] Levi's Stadium. They have even the

[4:47:15] Bicycle Coalition. Silicon Valley

[4:47:16] Bicycle Coalition is on the Levi's

[4:47:19] Stadium website. I cannot figure out,

[4:47:21] and Alicia is working on this, but we

[4:47:24] have to get BART's link on there.

[4:47:26] Because a lot of people in their

[4:47:28] roadmap or their transit map doesn't

[4:47:32] understand how BART links over to the

[4:47:39] Stadium. Everybody lived there so

[4:47:43] long, there's a link at Milpitas. It's

[4:47:47] a relatively new station and to get the

[4:47:49] word out to get Levi's Stadium to get

[4:47:54] the BART transit icon on there, so they

[4:47:58] can see that BART is a partner.

[4:48:01] Caltrain is also on their website.

[4:48:05] It's unfortunate. I know you are

[4:48:07] trying Alicia, so keep it up. I don't

[4:48:09] know, Bob, who can talk to the Levi's

[4:48:13] Stadium folks? Maybe it's political.

[4:48:14] I appreciate you doing more outreach

[4:48:17] and I'm hoping to see our BART link on

[4:48:19] the outside of Levi's Stadium.

[4:48:29] >> Thank you, item B, Roll Call for

[4:48:31] Introduction. Any Roll Call for

[4:48:32] Introductions?

[4:48:33] >> Can I just jump in and say, Bob,

[4:48:35] can you talk about the role that you

[4:48:36] play in the Bay Area Host Committee

[4:48:41] just briefly?

[4:48:42] >> So I'm on the Host Committee,

[4:48:46] Directors, and the Host Committee is

[4:48:48] the kind of the think-tank of not only

[4:48:50] the Super Bowl and the FIFA games, but

[4:48:53] other events that we're -- we as a

[4:48:55] region, are chasing with the leadership

[4:48:59] here. And so me being on the Host

[4:49:01] Committee, and the link between -- to

[4:49:04] all the other operators is very

[4:49:06] critical. And I have a lot of back and

[4:49:10] forth with Members directly with the

[4:49:11] Host Committee with Rodd Lee staffing

[4:49:16] the thing. So Director Ames, we're

[4:49:20] pretty plugged in there and the

[4:49:21] connection there to jump on VTA, and

[4:49:24] down to the Stadium there. So we can

[4:49:26] reinforce that. I can talk to the head

[4:49:28] of the Host Committee, and see if

[4:49:30] there's an opportunity there. But

[4:49:32] also, then Capitol Corridor; right?

[4:49:33] Comes right down, and makes that

[4:49:36] connection there. And we had at my --

[4:49:40] I shouldn't say my, by I just run it as

[4:49:43] the BART GM, the 9:00 Monday morning

[4:49:46] meeting all the GMs had the Host

[4:49:51] Committee with MTC as well to

[4:49:55] coordinate this stuff and BART is at

[4:49:59] the center of conversation. Whether

[4:50:01] it's the Communications Officer or he

[4:50:04] just left here our Chief transportation

[4:50:06] Officer is at the center of these

[4:50:07] discussions and I can certainly keep

[4:50:09] you posted on that.

[4:50:10] >> Thank you, Bob. I have been trying

[4:50:13] for a couple of years with the Swifties

[4:50:17] and all the events happening at Levi's

[4:50:20] Stadium. We really need to get our

[4:50:21] logo on there, so people can see that

[4:50:24] we're connected all around the bay.

[4:50:25] Thank you so much. Hopefully you can

[4:50:28] put pressure on them. Thank you.

[4:50:32] >> Director Foley and Director Raburn.

[4:50:33] >> Thank you, just a brief update on

[4:50:36] January 8th I attended the Contra Costa

[4:50:40] Mayors conference. January 13th, I

[4:50:42] attended the Contra Costa County Board

[4:50:45] of Supervisors reorganization event.

[4:50:46] On the 20th, earlier this week, I made

[4:50:49] a Role-in-the-Region presentation to

[4:50:52] East Contra Costa Democratic club and I

[4:50:54] want to thank Director Rinn for

[4:50:55] covering for me last night at the

[4:50:59] Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

[4:51:01] I was attending my East Bay MUD

[4:51:07] retirement party. Thank you.

[4:51:10] >> That came out of nowhere --

[4:51:13] --

[4:51:15] [laughter ]Did he just drop he is

[4:51:18] retiring?

[4:51:19] [ APPLAUSE ]

[4:51:22] If we would have none, we would have

[4:51:25] made sure that Franklin brought some

[4:51:29] cupcakes. Congratulations -- how many

[4:51:30] years? How many years?

[4:51:31] >> I was in my 33rd year of employment

[4:51:35] with East Bay MUD. I'm vacationing out

[4:51:38] to April Fools, which is my official day

[4:51:43] off the books.

[4:51:44] >> Congratulations!

[4:51:46] >> Thank you, Jerry.

[4:51:53] Congratulations for your years of

[4:51:54] service, 33.

[4:51:55] >> Director?

[4:51:56] >> I'm amazed you are still a young

[4:51:59] man. On January 10th, I attended Mayor

[4:52:09] Stephen Cassidy's service and the

[4:52:10] community came out enforce. This was a

[4:52:13] large group. On the 12th, I usually

[4:52:16] don't report that I attend our Advisory

[4:52:20] Committee meetings, but I attended the

[4:52:25] BPCRB meeting which was attended by

[4:52:31] Cephus and Wanda Johnson who invited

[4:52:35] people to participate in the

[4:52:41] Happy Birthday Oscar Grant, which

[4:52:43] will be an ongoing event. Cephus

[4:52:48] inquired about a collaborative report

[4:52:50] underway between the State Department

[4:52:52] of Justice and the Bart Police

[4:52:54] Department resulting from Senate Bill

[4:52:56] 2, which was passed in 2023. Further

[4:53:01] information about the status of this

[4:53:04] report is probably available from

[4:53:07] either our Office of Inspector General,

[4:53:13] pardon me, our Police Inspector or

[4:53:16] Chief Franklin. That is all. Thank you

[4:53:20] .

[4:53:21] >> Director Li, and Director Ghosh.

[4:53:23] >> I just want to note one thing, I

[4:53:27] want to shout-out our General Manager,

[4:53:29] and Chief Franklin for attending the

[4:53:34] Mayor State of City, which I also

[4:53:36] attended last Thursday, the 15th. It

[4:53:40] was a very, very well-attended event.

[4:53:44] I appreciated it. It was right in my

[4:53:46] own neighborhood of the inner Richmond

[4:53:50] at Rossi playground. The one thing I

[4:53:52] will note is that Mayor Lurie did

[4:53:56] express his commitment to supporting

[4:53:58] public transit, particularly Muni and

[4:54:00] BART, and I gave a little cheer for

[4:54:04] BART. Maybe inappropriate, but hey.

[4:54:07] So yeah, just want to thank BART for

[4:54:09] showing up for that.

[4:54:14] >> Director Ghosh.

[4:54:15] >> Just briefly wanted to shout-out

[4:54:20] the Berkeley MLK breakfast that I

[4:54:26] attended on Monday, January 19th. It

[4:54:29] was one of the first events I attended

[4:54:33] after I got elected and it's always

[4:54:35] been a great way to start the year and

[4:54:38] be grounded in those values, especially

[4:54:40] with the times that we're in. Thank

[4:54:42] you.

[4:54:44] >> Thank you. And VP Wright.

[4:54:45] >> Thank you. I just wanted to take

[4:54:47] the opportunity to again thank our

[4:54:50] Staff, who made possible the incredible

[4:54:51] event that we had at our 16th Street

[4:54:53] Plaza in the mission on January 10th.

[4:54:59] I think it was a really big success and

[4:55:02] in my hopes of a preview of more

[4:55:04] collaborations to come, with the City

[4:55:05] and County of San Francisco, the

[4:55:08] conversations are actively underway.

[4:55:09] When I went, the first thing that the

[4:55:12] vendors asked me was when can we do

[4:55:15] this again? So we're actively in

[4:55:17] discussion with our City partners and

[4:55:19] hopefully, I'll have more to share

[4:55:22] soon. Thank you.

[4:55:24] >> We have one public speaker. Jerry

[4:55:35] Grace. Jerry.

[4:55:39] >> Hello everybody. Last year, two of

[4:55:44] you guys was doing last year -- and you

[4:55:48] know who you are. You were there once

[4:55:55] before. This year, ADA has a meeting

[4:55:59] again for Robert Orr. Will you please

[4:56:07] help me say the name? The thing again?

[4:56:14] >> The name?

[4:56:15] >> Yes.

[4:56:17] That is what I tried to point out. Two

[4:56:20] of them were there once before and

[4:56:24] others were not there before. That is

[4:56:26] what I'm trying to say about the

[4:56:30] meeting today after this one. Thank

[4:56:35] you. 3:00, please join us this time,

[4:56:40] this year 226. And I do not know who

[4:56:43] you are. -- a lot of them do not know

[4:56:46] who you are. Please join us at 3:00

[4:56:48] this afternoon. We want to see you

[4:56:50] there at our -- two of you guy were

[4:56:53] there before, and some other people

[4:56:57] did not. Please, please come, join us,

[4:56:59] have fun and a good time. Thank you.

[4:57:02] >> In this room?

[4:57:03] >> No, across the hall.

[4:57:07] >> Thank you. Our item B, any Roll

[4:57:11] Call for Introductions? Not seeing

[4:57:13] any, we do not have any in memoriam.

[4:57:16] We'll go ahead and go to Closed

[4:57:18] Session, which is item 10. I do need to

[4:57:24] read that there was -- we'll now enter

[4:57:26] into Closed Session under item 10.A of

[4:57:29] the agenda, please note the agenda had

[4:57:33] an error and identified as wrong court

[4:57:36] Case No., the court -- the correct

[4:57:38] court and Case No. in San Francisco's

[4:57:40] Superior Court Case No.

[4:57:43] CGC24-613504. We'll reconvene in Open

[4:57:50] Session upon conclusion of the Closed

[4:57:51] Session item.

[5:33:29] [ GAVEL ]

[5:33:37] We're back out of Closed Session and

[5:33:38] there's nothing to report. And we'll

[5:33:40] adjourn this meeting at 2:05.

[5:33:42] [ GAVEL ]

Board of Directors on 2026-01-22 9:00 AM - The Board Meeting will be held in person in the BART Board Room with an option for public participation via teleconference. Please Note: attachments have been added to and revised for Item 3-J and 7-A.

Agenda

Transcript