>> Good morning and welcome to our second
meeting of the year. We will go ahead
and get started. And it's January
22nd, 2026 at 9:02 and we're ready to
please take roll call.
>> Director Ames?
>> Here.
>> Director Flores?
>> Here.
>> Director Foley?
>> Present.
>> Director Ghosh?
>> Here.
>> Director Li?
>> Here.
>> Director Raburn?
>> Here.
>> Director Rinn?
>> Here.
>> Vice President Wright?
>> Here.
>> President Hernandez?
>> Present.
>> We have a quorum.
>> Thank you. We'll go ahead and
please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the
republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
>> We're now heading into your
introduction of special guests. And I
will at this time turn it over to
Director Ghosh, who will introduce
William White.
>> Thank you, Chair. I wanted to take
this time to recognize Mr. William
White for his leadership over the last
15 years and founding Member of the
BART Police Civilian Review Board.
This happened soon after the murder of
Oscar Grant and William played a
pivotal role in transparent oversight
of the BART's Police Department. I
did not get a chance to work with him,
as I started my term last year, but
even in the one year that we have
interacted, I have just been to
grateful for his advice and his
presence, and his deep history with the
Civilian Review Board. He consistently
elevated community voice and he was
instrumental in advancing critical
policies, including body-worn camera,
bias-based profiling, one of the
nation's first minimal use-of-force
stars. His fairness, integrity and
leadership in case review strengthened
public trust and accountability for the
BART Police Department. We want to
extend our sincere appreciation for his
many years' of service, and we were
coordinating with William, and thank
you, Mag and Bob, for all of the work
that you did, but unfortunately he did
have a family emergency this morning.
He was supposed to join us by Zoom. He
is not able to do that. But I'm happy
if there are any comments from folks,
we can us send him the recording. But
truly it was a great honor to have
interacted with him even for the
chance that I got. We have a plaque
for him that will be accepted by
Dana Lang and former BPCRB
Member Kidd. Can we go to comments?
>> We can continue.
>> Good morning, President Hernandez,
and Members of BART Board of
Directors. My name is Dana Lang and
I'm current Chair of the Bart Police
Civilian Review Board. We value Mr.
William White's work for the
last 15 years as a founding Member of
this very important organization, and
it's particularly important at this
point in time. His mantra was
transparency, and fairness. And that
is what we want to continue to advance.
So thank you for honoring him. And
with me is Sharon Kidd, who will be
accepting on his behalf.
>> Great. Good morning everyone. My
name is Sharon Kidd and I'm a past
Board Member of BART's Civilian Review
Board. I came on with Bill and George,
and Bill was our pillar. He was the
one who instructed us and kept us in
your places because we both came from
the City of Berkeley Police Civilian
Review Board. I wish Bill were here,
but I'm honored for receiving and thank
you for recognizing him. Thank you.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> Thank you. I think I'm done. It's
hard to encapsulate so many decades' of
work, but very grateful. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Director Ghosh and thank
you, Mr. White for all your dedication
and service to the BART family, and
wish you would have been here
in-person, but I'm sure the award will
be given to you gratefully and again,
appreciate all your time and
dedication. We have a public speaker.
Patrick Caceres.
>> Good morning, Board of Directors.
Patrick Caceres Investigator with
Bart's Office of the IP. I will be very
Brave and thank you Director Ghosh for
recognizing William White. He was always
a Board Member since the time that
I have gotten here, and so I have
worked over ten-plus years with him,
and as everyone said, he has always been
a very amazing leader. Someone that
has led with integrity and somebody who
has always brought a voice to the table
that was needed. So I appreciate him
and his mentorship and his cooperation
with our office, the Office of the
Independent Police Auditor. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Patrick. At this time,
we'll go to Item No. 2, which is report
of the Board President. I just wanted
to remind our Board of Directors that
we'll be having our meeting on February
12th, and it's an all-day, it's casual.
You don't have to wear your suit and
tie and please come comfy, if you would
like. So we'll look forward to
that and sending out kind of the run of
the show and if you have questions,
please make sure you tell Mr. Powers.
And then Item No. 3.
>> We have two public comments,
sorry.
>> The first is Barney Smits. Barney.
>> Barney, go ahead.
>> My name is Barney Smits. I'm a
licensed professional engineer with
over 25 years' experience as a BART
engineer and Fire/Life Safety expert.
Thank you, President Hernandez. I see
many in the agenda where the seats on
the various BART Board Committees are
being appointed. Over the last three
years, I have pointed out the
mismanagement and lack of transparency
on the BSVII project. I have made
numerous requests for the BART Board to
establish a Sub-Committee on the BSVII
project as both BART and VTA are
failing in BART Board oversight.
Again, this Sub-Committee appears to be
missing. How many Members of the
Board have read the report from the
BART Office of Inspector General dated
December 19, 2025? The record entitled
"transparency and communication gaps
in the BSVII project." Noted the limited
public discussion and mixed messaging
that evolve over the past decade and
the report noted without clear
communication and consistent Board
oversight, BART risks losing influence
over the design decisions that directly
affect its ability to operate and
maintain the future extension safely
and efficiently. The report confirms
that the comprehensive agreement gives
BART approval authority over design
elements that affect operations,
maintenance and safety. The report
recommended that BART management
provide detailed reoccurring public
presentations to the BART Board on the
status of the BSVII project, and as a
minimum, these updates should include
BART's review and approval process
under the design criteria manual.
These public presentations are designed
to strengthen governance and enhance
transparency. Please continue -- I
continue trying to help this Board and
BART management to understand how to
keep BART safe. I believe that a BART
Sub-Committee is essential to restoring
BART's full participation in this
critical project. I hope that you will
double your efforts to be a full and
equal partner on the BSVII project.
Thank you.
>> We also have Aleta Dupree. Aleta.
>> Thank you, good morning. President
Melissa Hernandez and Members. Aleta
Dupree, for the record, she and her
with team folds. Regarding the
Workshop. I'm looking forward to it.
I did get to go to the Workshop last
year. I hope we can do that Q&A again
where you all were asked questions
about which did and didn't do and I
shared about my hang gliding and
operating trains and the fact that I
did not play flute and I cannot play
any musical instruments. So I like
those ice breakers. While we
normally don't have the agendas ready
until usually the Friday before the
meeting, I hope that further ahead of
time we can publish the general theme
of what this Workshop is about. I know
that every year our Workshop has a
general theme. And it is this theme
that will help me to inform my comments
to you, written and spoken. I hope to
be at your Workshop. I'm presuming I'm
always casual and I'm sure I will be
wearing a new skirt, maybe I will wear
a skirt with folds. Anyway, let's do
our preparation work for this Workshop,
pun intended and I hope to be this.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Aleta. If you come
in-person, I have a newspaper from New
York for you. Let Bob Franklin know.
Any other public comment?
>> There are no additional requests to
address the Board.
>> Okay. Not seeing any other public
comment we'll go to the Consent
Calendar. I would like to just quickly
pull item b. Just to make one little
quick change on there, and then, do I
have any Directors? Not seeing any
other Directors pulling anything, I
will go ahead and ask for a motion for
the remaining of the agenda?
>> President Hernandez?
>> Yes.
>> I would like to ask regarding item
C if the appointee to the Bart Police
citizen Review Board is in the audience?
>> Yes.
>> Or online?
>> Perfect. Let's just go and let's
go in a row with item B. I would just
like to make a quick change of -- on
the VTA Committee. We're doing a
little switcheroo as Ames as the
Member. Now we'll go to item C. The
appoint of Bart Police Civilian Review
Board Member District 7. That is
Jennifer.
>> Rakowski.
>> Correct.
>> Welcome and please introduce
yourself.
>> Thank you so much to all of the
Directors. My name is Jennifer
Rakowski. I have been a Bart rider,
proudly, for over 30 years, and I want
to particularly acknowledge Director
Flores for nominating me for this
Review Board, and for all of the
Directors' consideration. I am humbled
both by the legacy of those who have
been on the Board before, and the
knowledge that the current oversight
structure is rooted in the community
grief and family grief of Oscar Grant
that took place in District 7. Many
community voices have risen up to
direct BART on a path towards more
equity and Justice, and I see BART
stepping up to be a leader in transit
agency around use-of-force, around
excited delirium and I look forward to
playing a role in continuing that
integrity. I personally have knowledge
of the important role and unique role
BART plays in our region with missing
children, and disabled who are lost,
and needing to be secured in an
equitable manner. And ultimately the
importance BART plays getting people to
work, getting them to family, getting
them to all of the places where they
make memories, and I plan to approach
this role with respect, transparency,
and accountability as the Hallmarks of
the position. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And this morning we've
honored William White for his 15
years' of service of he was thoughtful,
fair and dedicated for 15 years, and he
exhibited outstanding character. And
your comments really resonate with me,
and I saw Chair Dana Lang in the
audience smiling as well. So welcome
on-board.
>> Thank you. I will move approval
of the Consent Calendar.
>> I will second. I will just
clarify, as amended, on the consent
item and I will second that.
>> Yes, we do have -- thank you,
Director Raburn and Director Rinn. We
also have another public comment.
Esther Waltz for item 3I. Good
morning, Esther.
>> Good morning. Nice to meet you,
Bob, and thank you for having me, and
the reason I would like to join the
BART Task Force is to help make BART
friendlier through improvements, you
know, like, making it more efficient
for people transitioning from the
concourse down to the platform, make
that area part of the system more
efficient. So that it allows the train
that sits at the stop, for those that
need a little extra time embarking and
disembarking the trains can do so
safely, and making thing -- educating
people on being more courteous to
Seniors and disabled, and educating
youth, because I have seen some things
where people have -- I have seen it
with people haven't always been
courteous enough to give up in
particular the seats that are marked
yellowish-green, which designates that
a Priority Area for the disabled
people. Expectant mothers and others
who need -- I know I have seen a lot of
people willy nilly, giving me their
seat, and they stand the rest of their
ride. I'm capable with standing and
holding on. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Esther. All right, do
we have any public speakers?
>> We have one, Aleta Dupree.
>> Aleta.
>> Aleta, please, go ahead.
>> Thanks again, President Melissa
Hernandez, and Members. Aleta Dupree
for the, she and her with team folds.
Thank you for the streamlined handling
of the public comment today because I
often get tripped up on the Consent
Calendar. Some business about the cash
carts. Very good report. We need to
make it easier for people to haul that
heavy money around. I do think about
when in New York, they have the revenue
trains, and they had all those carts
that they had to move through the
tunnels to 370.
J Street. They stopped doing that. I
hope we can someday do something about
our old revenue trains. I think we
have revenue trains, but anyway, I can
ask Bob about that someday. I am
looking forward to our new appointees
who are going to join in this work on
our Advisory Committees. I do engage
with both of those Committees from time
to time, can't say I have met either of
these people. In reading the
background, I'm not seeing any issues.
Certainly hope they wouldn't --
somebody like me who is different
wearing a skirt, because I might be
there in-person someday. So I hope as
they go forward that they have
inclusive perspectives of the people
who ride BART and being able to have
their issues heard, and addressed.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
Reasonable, so I believe that this
entire Consent Calendar reflects the
People's system. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Aleta. Any other public
comment?
>> No, there --
>> I have Director Flores.
>> Thank you. Before we go on to the
vote, I would like to thank Jennifer
for her initiative in applying for this
position for the Civilian Review Board.
She comes highly recommended from many
constituents in Alameda for her years'
of service to the City around Police
reform and racial equity, as well as
her public service and tenant
protections. So I just want to say
thank you and look forward to her
service here at BART.
>> Thank you. And we have --
>> If I may, I would also like to
thank Esther Waltz for stepping up to
represent the riders of the blue line,
which I rode in this morning. So thank
you again.
>> Yes, we always want to thank our
Committee Members, on all of our boards
because a lot of it is dedication of
their own time, their own personal
time. Thank you again. Thank you for
the public speakers. We have a motion
and second for the Consent Calendar.
If you could please take the roll.
>> Yes.
Director Ames?
>> Yes.
>> Director Flores?
>> Aye.
>> Director Foley?
>> Aye.
>> Director Ghosh?
>> Yes.
>> Director Li?
>> Yes.
>> Director Raburn?
>> Yea.
>> Director Rinn?
>> Aye.
>> Vice President Wright?
>> Aye.
>> President Hernandez?
>> Aye.
>> Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. We'll go on to our
General Manager's report.
>> Good morning, President Hernandez,
Vice President Wright, Board of Directors.
A couple of updates from the GM here:
Ridership, we're tracking about 3.5% above
budget for January and it continues to grow.
A lot of it is driven by our on-time
performance and the work we're doing
there, but also these large events,
especially over this past weekend. The
Memorial for Bob Weir at the Civic
Center, the K-Pop band twice had had a
nice ridership boost at the Oakland
arena and obviously, the good weather
has helped our ridership. I wanted to
second President Hernandez, our next
Board Meeting the very next one is
going to be the Workshop, February
12th, all day in this Board Room. You
heard about the dress attire from the
President there, but I would say this,
it's got a singular focus, and I sent
out a note, I think, last Friday or
last Thursday or Wednesday or
something. The singular focus on that
Workshop is the fiscal cliff. There's
variants of that fiscal Cliff, the
pre-before the fiscal cliff itself and
obviously, what we're doing to drive
ridership up in 2026, FY'26, and
calendar-year 26 and build public
confidence. At the core of the next
meeting is going to be a discussion
about our fiscal cliff at the Workshop.
Single tracking is going to happen the
next two Sundays on the yellow line
between Rockridge and Orinda. And it's
for vegetation management, and we'll be
out there doing that, and then our
traction power group will take
advantage of that window to maximize
their access to the trackway. So that
is the next two Sundays we'll be single
tracking. I guess to all of the
directors here, but you know, maybe I
will take a little -- I minor league
get myself into trouble, but that is
okay. Director Flores, and Director
Raburn, but for everybody, West Oakland
TOD phase 1, a quick update on that.
Been able to secure tax credits and
financing for phase 1, and it's going
to deliver approximately 240
Affordable-Housing Units there. And
what is most important, for me, on
schedule, schedule, schedule, we hope
to begin construction on that phase
1,240-Affordable-Housing Units this
summer, the summer of 26 here, right
around the corner. I know it's
Director Flores and Director Raburn
have a long history out there trying to
take that happen. So I appreciate
yours and Director Flores' commitment
there. Comedy train is this Saturday
and it's -- I'm telling -- I'm a firm
believer it's these complementary
events that we're doing that help drive
up ridership, and this is just another
example of that. It's this Saturday,
it's called SF sketch fest on rails.
We're going to have four comedians
performing 15-minute sets on-board.
It's sold out. You had to get a ticket
and all of that. It's sold out,
running from 12th Street to
Pittsburg-Bay Point. So it's disco style
with headphones and all of that. We're
trying that and look like it's going to
be a success, because it sold-out
quick. I want to assure everybody here
about our being at the center of and
being ready for these large events and
the next big one coming up is obviously
the Super Bowl. Our Chief
Transportation Officer and Chief
Communication Officer, Rodd Lee is at
the center of discussions, running
longer trains, not just the event
itself, but a watch party at Lake
Merritt and a watch party downtown and
tracking all of that and coordinating
with the other agencies including
Capitol Corridor, which runs all the way
down to the Stadium this. So and we
fronted a website on our website it's
BART.gov Super Bowl at the center of
those discussions and making sure that
all works out. Two more items
quickly here: I hope you are all
tracking later today, we have a Member
of the BART Accessibility Task Force
that was in front of you and you just
approved that Membership to that
Committee. They are going to their
annual meet-and-greet here today in
this room, ore actually it's across the
hall, sorry in the multi-purpose room
from 3-4:30, if you are around it's
always a nice event. Introduce
yourself, get to know some of the
Members of the BART Accessibility Task
Force. Michael and I will make every
attempt to get there. I know I have a
3:00, but I will be down there at some
point and Michael will be down there.
Anyway, it's just good to strengthen
those relationships, because all voices
matter here at BART. And then the last
item in front of you, you should have a
folder. But so next Tuesday and
Wednesday, we, collectively we are
going to be up in Sacramento. It looks
like there's six Directors heading up
there. It will be the six of you,
Staff, and our advocates, our labor
partners as well. And we're going to
be up in the Capitol. We're going to
meet with our State Legislators from
both parties and the Governor's Office.
Right now you have a draft run of
show, the meetings are always changing
getting added, getting subtracted.
We're trying to fit that into their
calendars there and I want to
say because we always run so fast,
going boom, boom, boom. I wanted to
thank you for taking time out of
everything else you have got going to
join me up there with me and Rodd and
others as we look forward to some very
productive discussions up there. So
with that, President Hernandez, Vice
President Wright, I will conclude my
GM's report.
>> Thank you. And I unfortunately
will not be able to attend the
accessibility. I will be at ACTC and I
know my -- the person that I had
appointed to that Task Force had
emailed me. So I'm sure she will be
there.
>> We'll be there.
>> And that you are able to make it as
well. So we'll go ahead and go on to
public comment and I do have Glen
Overton.
Good morning, Mr. Overton.
>> Good morning, President Hernandez.
General Manager Powers. You know they
say stuff roll downhills. Well, this
guy is a lot of good stuff rolling
downhills. Believe me when I tell you.
I came into the station this morning,
and I couldn't even use my dust mop.
Well, I got a different one this time.
I declare I already I was all fired
up. I was looking for those spots. I
couldn't find a one. I seen a lot of
contented BART riders. Hereby I
entered the system -- why? Because
President Hernandez and Bob Powers and
Staff care. And the State ought to care.
This is a caring for California, not
just the Bay Area. It's a caring for
the world, not just California. It's a
caring for us, and all of our riders
count, a moment of silence for all of
us.
For us. Thank you.
>> Thank you
>> Thank you. Public speakers online,
Aleta Dupree and then Barney Smits.
>> Thanks again, President Melissa
Hernandez, and Members. Aleta Dupree, for
the record, she and her with team
folds. Very good report. I always
enjoy Bob's meaningful and helpful
reports. We're doing better and we're
doing well with ridership. I see where
that is considered to pre-pandemic. I
think the New York City subways around
85-90%. So we want to get people back
on the trains. And I'm interested in
the idea of this comedy train. I
didn't buy a ticket for it, couldn't be
there. I like the disco theme, and we
don't do express trains very often.
When I go to New York, they have these
express routes, and I think this
express train is going to be longer
than the old JFK express that ran in
New York City from 1978 to 1990, I
think, which I used often. They still
have express routes in New York City
that I enjoy. And given the disco
theme, I'm going to borrow some Don
Cornelius here would say at the end of
the show, it's going to be a stone gas,
honey, peace, love and soul. Let me
know how that goes. We need to be
ready for our special events especially
with Clipper. Clipper Executive Board
will meet on Monday. Maybe I will be
there. And last year I did get to go
to the BART Accessibility Task Force
meet-and-greet and found it to be very
helpful and Christine Arsenault at the
time was Chair. I hope you will be
there. I'm not going to be there, I'm
too far away and I'm sure the food will
be very good. Thank you, Bob answered
the question about the theme of the
Workshop. So now I know. I can get
ready for that. I ask in all of these
items here, we remember that BART is
the People's system. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And now we have Barney.
>> My name is Barney Smits. I'm a
licensed professional engineer with
over 25 years' experience as a
BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety
expert. Thank you General Manager
Powers for the update on ridership and
the upcoming public events. See there's
a report on nine safety incidents in
the 4th quarter of last year. I note
that BART never finished their analysis
on the TransBay Tube Fire and smoke
incident. What happened after train
387 got moving again, and during
the remaining seven minutes before the
train exited the tunnel to safety?
When is BART going to publish a full
public briefing on the safety incident?
I asked every times about the status
of various traction power Substations
and the overall traction power system?
No information has been provided to the
public. Is the Civic Center Substation
still not operational? How many months
behind schedule is this Substation?
Again, I'm asking how many Substations
are out of service, how many traction
power cable faults are currently
hindering BART operations? What is
wrong with the TransBay Tube's
electrical power system? I understand
that there's been an operating
restriction in the TransBay Tube since
April. That appears to be nine months.
Next I would like to ask about the
BSVII project. Did the General Manager
read the BART Inspector General's
report of 2025 and are you prepared to
provide this Board and the public with
the detailed presentation on the status
of the BSVII project that the report
recommended? If not, could you
enlighten the Board and the public how
you plan to strengthen governance and
transparency on this project as BART is
a full partner and bears fiduciary and
legal responsibilities for the safety
and transparent execution of this
project. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Moving on to one of our
Directors. Robert Raburn.
>> Thank you, President Hernandez. I
just wanted to thank GM Powers for
his report and while BART trains
are sold out on that date, sketch fest,
I went to the website and looked at the
list of events, and I started
scrolling. And I kept scrolling. And
it is page after page of events with a
number of headliners, Bob Odenkirk at
the top of the list. This is a big
deal and most venues all over the Bay
Area, and most of those are BARTable.
So anybody that feels left-out, you're
not. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Director Raburn. We
will go onto to public comment,
item No. 6 and we have Glen Overton.
We have Glen Overton for Item No. 5.
We now have Item No. 5. And then we'll
have public comment and we'll have our
Inspector General right after that if
you want to go ahead and do public
comment, sure and we'll go onto our
Inspector General.
>> I believe that -- I'm sorry, Madam
President, and General Manager, Staff.
I believe that BART has a not only an
infrastructure responsibility, but an
institutional responsibility. To
educate the public the stations should
educate, not just serve. Anyone can do
that. We have in the United States, I
don't know how many in the world how
many transit stations, but how many of
them are cultural artifacts? That can
express community? This is an
innovative community. BART needs to
inspire innovation, education,
advancement, equality. The stations
should speak, levy upon the community a
sense of community because it brings
the communities together. I believe
we have a responsibility not just for
transit, but for community. Thank you.
>> So the other public comments for
No. 5. Barney Smits, please, go ahead.
>> Actually this was item 6, but we'll
go for it. My name is Barney Smits.
I'm a licensed professional engineer
with 25 years' experience as a BART
engineer and Fire/Life Safety expert.
Last meeting I asked about the
significant reduction in safety on BART
to Silicon Valley project and extended
tunnel between emergency exits. I
asked about why VTA extended the
spacing to 500' when the BART facility
standards requires a maximum of 300'
between cross passages? This is a
significant reduction in safety. This
meeting I would like to ask why
additional reductions in safety require
patrons in an emergency to climb ten
flights of stairs to reach safety at
the surface? No existing BART Station
requires this many stairs. No existing
BART Station has -- all existing BART
Stations have the surface as a point of
safety. Since the comprehensive
agreement gives BART approval authority
over design elements that affect
operations, maintenance and safety, I
ask why BART is jeopardizing BART
employees, patron and first-responders
by allowing these significant
reductions in safety? I have tried to
make everyone aware of the dangers of
smoke filed stations and Fire deep
underground. Some say that won't
happen, but the New Year's derailment
and Fire a few years ago and the
September TransBay Tube coverboard Fire
should be a clear incident that fires
and smoke filled stations do happen.
The increase in third rail insulator
failures coverboard and smoke
incidents last year are more examples
of the danger of reducing safety in the
BART system. VTA's reduction in safety
could result in the loss of life.
Please insist that BART management
utilize the comprehensive agreement to
force VTA to provide BART patrons a
comparable level of safety BART-Silicon
Valley Phase II is safety in spite
Mayor and deeper underground than any
BART Station at 100' and BART should
insist of returning to the faster and
cheaper to twin-bore design. Thank you.
>> Thank you. We are going to Item
No. 5, which is our Office of Inspector
General OIG report. If we can please
have them come forward.
>> Good morning Directors it's good
to see you this morning. I want to go
ahead and click -- thank you. I'm very
pleased to present our audit of
construction change orders conducted by
GPP Analytics an independent firm and
thank GPP Analytics and Mr. Metcalf for
his work on the audit and the BART
Staff that cooperated and often result
from factor as unforeseen site
conditions design refinements
regulatory requirement and owner
initiated changes. And also, you know,
there is fraud risk associated with
them and Julian will touch on that in
his report. But ultimately what this
report is for to provide context for
how change orders function within BART,
and how there are opportunities for
continued improvements, and governance
accountability and of course,
stewardship of public resources. With
that, I'm going to hand that over to
Mr. Metcalf.
>> Thank you, Inspector General and
thank you, Directors for having me here
today. My name is Julian Metcalf and
just for my presentation we'll do a
quick overview of the audit scope and
objectives. There's a Section on the
context to help put everything into
perspective, and make sure there are
shared terminology and I will go over
the four findings of the audit, and
there's opportunity for questions at
the end, of course. So you may also be
aware of this, but the audit was
conducted using the GAGAS standards
offer otherwise known as the yellow
book and to look at construction change
order practices and compliance with
laws and regulation, identify
opportunity for improve related to
risks of fraud, waste and abuse. We had
a four-year scope. But I believe the
findings and recommendations apply
beyond this period of time to the
practices in general and worth noting
most of the time our sampling Mench
ogle used 95% confidence level and 10%
margin of error to remind everyone that
the numbers here are not going to be
perfect. What we talk about in one of
the audit finding in particular are
some limitations with the data and
information that is available. So when
you see the numbers I would encourage
ug to look at them as ballpark figures
often times they are derived from this
estimate methodology and in cases
where we deviated from this, the report
gets into detail, and footnotes. So
before getting into the nitty gritty
it's worth noting that things we
observed BART doing well. In our
testing we saw a common compliance-
oriented culture and practice. Teams
and individuals were following BART
policies, and concerned about BART
policies as we could tell from
documentation and from individual
reviews. We also noticed instances of
continuous improvement and proactive
approach, in particular before we
engage in the audit, BART's performance
and innovation team engaged in a rapid
improvement event convening variation
stakeholders involved in the change
order process and identified various
inefficiencies and opportunities for
improvement of which, not all of them
were implemented. And a lot of that I
believe was in anticipation of this
audit being completed. So they may
have made advancements since then, but we
noted the proactive before the audit
began. For context, you may all know
this, but I think it's just to make
sure we're speaking the same term I
wanted to just mention the different
definitions here. And change orders
are very common, and what they mean are
modifications to add or reduce work and
scope, adjust timelines to contract
terms. This often is due to
differences in site condition and one
of our findings talks about
opportunities to identify many of those
unexpected site conditions a little bit
better. There are also allowances.
Allowances are built into the contract
pre-approved amount for anticipated,
but not fully defined cost. So
contingencies that are built in. So one
of the challenges we see when we try to
compare apples-to-apples of change
orders across jurisdictions and Capital
Programs outside of BART is not every
system and not every user are use these
same terms. Allowances in some
situations play be considered change
order by others. So when you look at
raw number it's not always aims to
Apples because of the term. They are
good practice and present in BART and
also options in contract as you likely
know, if information or changes come up
later in the process, BART can exercise
these options and they are pre-defined
and built into the contract. That is
another area if you look across time,
you could sending differ from what the
intended amount to the actual amount
and this was because of pre-defined
option and finally, a type of change
order is a credit and descoping. And
these are noteworthy. It's
positive because when you credit money
back to BART, that is money coming
back, but it's also worth noting these
carry some amount of fraud risk,
collusion and different activities
could be involved in them. Yes, it's
possible to bring money back, still
worthy of scrutiny and attention. So
this is where we get into some of the
challenges of definition. This is a
busy table here but you can see the
first row is the total capital
construction spending and we pulled
this from BART's audited financial
statement. So there was a consistent
publicly available number we could
compare against. And in the asterisks
to read the fine print of what goes
into it, but it's roughly the amount of
money spent in each Fiscal Year on an
accounting basis for capital
construction spending. The next line
down is the next change orders. This
is the amount of extra money that was
spent from change orders that have
costs, and the net amount of descope
and credits that were taken out of
that. The lines below though these
separated out, but the amount is
important here because that is the net
amount that costs more than planned due
to change orders specifically. And
when you compare them as a percentage
of total capital spending it's a
relatively small percent, but as we'll
see in a slide shortly, this percentage
is extremely varied on a project by
project basis. You can start to see a
hint of this here. This is showing you
the distribution of them, the top
Section shows the amounts and
frequency of cost decreases, the
credits and descopes. The middle
Section shows the no-cost ones, no
dollar cost, but changes to the term
still run as a change order and the
bottom Section shows the cost
increases. You can see there are
numerous small cost increase change
order and a handful of very large ones
at the bottom. Now a very notable
thing is the TransBay Tube retrofit
that occurred. As you are well-aware
this was a very long-term project and
in our audit period, that project was
nearing its end. There was a very
significant 28.3 million credit that
occurred in this, this was money that
BART identified and requested back from
the vendors, and was credited back in a
change order that came back to BART.
On the next slide, if we exclude that
amount, because this is a large
project not captured in the full audit finding.
If you take that out because a
lot of change orders that were costly
occurred much earlier for this project,
from it we see nearly 50% increase in
the total net amount of change orders.
So it's just worth noting that when you
look at all of these numbers we have
the tail-end of very large project with
a very large credit, and it skews it.
So we showed it so you can try and see
what might be a more normal
circumstance. There may never been a
single year where everything is normal.
Is it will always be caveated a little
bit. And when I mention variability,
this chart shows some of the projects
that we looked at in-depth, and you can
see that there's the contract amount,
the net change orders. This is the
cost and the money coming back, and
then the percentage of the contract
that these change the orders
represented. If we look at the El
Cerrito Del Norte modernization
project, you can see that 49% of the
costs was due to change orders. Above
and beyond the contract amount. As you
go down, TransBay Tube retrofit, almost
30% then you get down to some smaller
cases. Well, you have the Hayward
Maintenance Complex phase 2, very small
amount of net change orders because of
some credits there. And then you have
other cases, such as tradition power
sub stations with a cost much lower
than anticipated due to credits and
change the orders. When we talk about
some of the data systems and
information challenges that BART has
with tracking change orders, what it
comes down to each project based on
information you can manual calculate
this by digging through a lot of
information. What is very difficult,
and I'm cutting ahead here a little
bit, is to look at this globally. It's
very difficult for Staff to pull this
information together and say well this
is what is happening and track it in
realtime, because each project has a
lot of circumstantial unique
information compiled on how it's
architected in information system and
when you look at small percentage
BARTwide and each project may have a
very different story depending on what
happened with each project. So it's
circumstantial. A lot of this stems
from the Office of Infrastructure
Delivery being tasked with
simultaneously enforcing contract
terms, and also maintaining project
progress. So you can imagine this
creates some amount of tension for a
Project Manager to be both
simultaneously pushing a project
forward quickly and with the highest
quality, but at the same time in charge
of policing and enforcing those
vendors, and ensuring contract
compliance. Now speaking with the
Office of Infrastructure Delivery they
report a lot of internal practices to
balance this within their own group.
But separating it out is the real
opportunity so that they can focus on
project delivery and can be a stronger
emphasis on separate monitoring. On
this next slide you can see that a lot
of different functions within BART are
involved in looking at change orders.
This is where I earlier mentioned the
compliance oriented approach comes in.
All of these functions will review
change orders and have some role in
looking at them. They are looking at
them individually, and it seems to be
mostly compliant-oriented view. There
are very few instances where anyone has
the opportunity, access to all of the
information to independently look at
change orders in a systematic
pattern-driven way to look for fraud,
waste and abuse. If you look at single
change order for compliance, it may
well be heavily scrutinized by these
individuals and that is quite a
positive function. There is a limited
occurrence of anyone stepping back and
looking at it. Our recommendation is
for internal Audit Division to take a
stronger lead in this, talking with
them, they had already had some of this
in the works. So I don't know exactly
where they are today, because this
audit work occurred a while ago, so I
don't want to speak too much to their
current plans, but they had already
started talking about how to have a
more active role. One of the reasons
it's difficult for them to do it, or
others within BART, is because not
everyone has access to all of the
information systems that they need and
reliant on information from the Office
of Infrastructure Delivery. So cutting
into our recommendations giving access
to the internal Audit Division for
frankly whoever is charged with this to
have access to all of the information
systems to get it in a read only
fashion and so that they can do this
monitoring concurrently. We're not
recommending a new step in the approval
of each change order. We are
recommending ongoing concurrent
monitoring of all of the change order
activity. So that change orders don't
have to be delayed by one more review.
It's already a very lengthily process
and that could add time to it. We're
recommending concurrent review, and
looking at patterns and trends as well
and having access to the information.
Getting ahead to finding 2, this is
where some of the challenges will
persist for the time being as well,
even if folks have access to all of the
information. A lot of the information
is locked up in systems that don't talk
to each other. This is common in any
organization. There are always digital
systems that end up functioning in
silos even with the best intentions.
There are two systems to talk about, as
you are probably familiar PeopleSoft is
the main enterprise system used, but
WongCMS is a repository used for
project management information and most
of the change order details are
stored there in the documents. The
way these two systems are designed they
use different field names. There's as
I mentioned credits, allowances,
options. Not all of those are properly
differentiated in these two systems,,
nor aligned with each other. So you
could imagine if you needed to
understand overall project spending,
you would think oh, I could get that
information from PeopleSoft very
easily. And then you think oh, well
let see how many of these are change
orders? That is not a possible
function today. So what needs to
happen, if you have a question about
change orders is someone will need to
manually look at the information and
compile that from what is in WongCMS.
So there's an opportunity here, because
it's our understanding that WongCMS is
in the process of an upgrade
replacement, to when that is replaced
to make them integrated and unify the
field and improve governance. So our
recommendations are centered around the
center to do that. We have a third
recommendation here, which may have
already been considered, but because so
much of this information is tied up in
WongCMS if and when it's replaced that
historic information is critical with
the long length of projects it would be
a major loss not to have access to
that. The third finding talks again
about some inconsistent records. The
Office of Civil Rights sanctioned small
business participation programs when we
did our sampling of 41 change orders in
this case, the Office of Civil Rights
could probably only eight of them from
their own records and 33 they needed to
request from project teams. Meaning
that while they were charged with
looking at these historically, they had
no access to them. It's our
understanding that a major problem was
simply just not getting emailed when
the change orders happened. Our
proposal is simple, update standard
operating procedures and give the
Office of Civil Rights access to this
information in a read-only capacity, so
they don't have to ask for it. It will
be reduce friction and hopefully save
everybody time and give them an
opportunity to perform their
functions better. And finally our
fourth finding is about improving
opportunities in Planning and design.
Of our samples about 5% of them
appeared to have avoidable errors. I
have to caveat this. I'm not an
engineer. So I do not like
Monday-morning quarterbacking here.
When we looked at a few of them, cases
for example, known 50-year-old conduit
that was underground, just a simple
Google search will tell you 50 years is
past its useful life. When it was dug
up, oh, yes, the conduit is corroded
and needed to be replaced. And
Planning for these types of things
could save both time and money.
Jumping back here, during the audit
period about $2.7 million of what
appeared to be avoidable costs. Best
practices suggest that doing better
Planning, even though there's a cost
to do subsurface investigations and
understand what is underground where
you finalize your plans, tends to have
a 4:1 return on investment. So even
though there would be an increased cost
with more subsurface investigations
doing so would have a savings over the
long-term. It's our understanding that
this is something that the Office of
Infrastructure Delivery was already
thinking about. It's very logical and
again, not as an engineer myself, I
feel silly even mentioning it because
I'm sure all of the professionals have
already been thinking heavily about
this, but reinforces the opportunity
for more Planning and investment
upfront to save time and money later.
And so that is the end of my
presentation. I will open up to any
questions that we might be able to
answer.
>> Thank you. I appreciate the
presentation. Do we have any questions
from the Board? Director Foley?
>> Thank you, President Hernandez.
Thank you for the presentation. I come
away with more questions than answers.
So I will ask a few. First off, how
does this report intersect with the
Bond Oversight Committee? Where is
this, you know, really directed to
what they do and how they look at
capital spending?
>> We didn't do this audit with this
perspective. It wasn't part of the
scope.
>> Is this something we will share
with them?
>> We certainly can, yeah.
>> I would think as the overseers of
our capital spending, that they would
want to understand this. So on a very
high-level we look at the change order
amounts compared to the contract
amount. When we're looking at the root
cause of change order need? In other
words, is this an -- error -- I don't
want to say error, but is there a
finding on our part as we go through
construction? Is this a contractor
issue? Because I would think that not
all change orders are created equal.
So how do we determine ones that are
necessary, from ones preventable?
>> I think I will let Julian answer
that one because he is closer to the
work.
>> Thank you, Director. It's
difficult to say in some cases. This is
a bit of a deflection. I apologize,
it's getting the information better so
that that can be answered more often.
Because it's difficult to know, in all cases.
>> It sounds like in cases where we
get a credit, we're actually reducing
the scope of work originally bid for?
>> Correct.
>> So we're getting less bang for the
buck, if you will, because of the
change order eating away at what our
approve dollar amount was, is that fair?
>> I'm not sure. I'm not sure if what
you mean by bang for the buck? When
they reduce something there could be so
much different reasons why they do it.
So it's kind of like -- I hate -- like
what Julian was saying deflecting a
little bit. If we look at just the TBT
descope, which was over $30 million was
quite significant. The question what
did they remove and Julian reviewed
those. I don't know off the top of my
head, but it depends upon did we really
need that to begin with or some
logistically reason it had to come out?
So it just really depends. Yes, we're
not getting exactly what we set out to
do initially when we descope?
>> So we did a scope of work with
these credits it sounds like that scope
is reduced.
>> Yes.
>> That we're actually not getting
what we approved as a Board.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> What I would like to see going
forward is as we approve contracts here
at the Board, if we can have some sort
of running list of you approved a
project for X amount of dollars, here's
the change order amounts through the
life of the contract. For me it would
just be things that we have approved at
this level, probably want to see a
bigger picture. I would be interested
to see how what we approved actually
changes during the life of the
contract, and how the scope has changed
during the life of the contract. So
that would be -- not necessarily to the
IG's office, but the GM's office. I
think that would be helpful as a Board
Member.
>> I think it's an excellent
recommendation. And one of the things
that Julian touched on a little bit,
but for me, I'm always thinking of the
worst case fraud scenario is always at
the back of my head. When I see really
big descopes I know from my experience
and training that is sometimes a way
that that -- like associated with
collusion, or some sort of scheme,
where a contractor might bid on
something and intentionally bid it low,
because they know in advance it's going
to come out anyway and they can win the
Ward. award. That is why I worry
about that and why it's important that
you see all of the information to ask
probing questions like why was there
such a descope and the other bid items?
Were they many, many higher than the
contract who won the award? Not that
it's fraud, but it's an indicator of
potential fraud. I highly agree with
that, and I think it's an excellent
recommendation.
>> Thank you.
>> Good morning, Directors. Michael
Jones, Deputy General Manager and to
jump in and I'm catching myself cold,
so don't hold me to any of the
information, Director Foley. The
TransBay Tube was for 100-year storm
design and designed several years ago
and when we actually started doing the
work we determined that we didn't need
as much scope as we did, and we brought
that back to the Board and
transparently reported that.
>> It did go back in front of the
Board.
>> So I don't anyone to say there's a
$28 million descope and there's
collusion, because it was 100%
transparent.
>> I was just wondering from the pure
numbers point, how the dollar amounts
change and the scope changes through
the life of contract ? that is all I
have. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Director Ames.
>> I do remember that tunnel
discussion, and I was concerned about
the descope. Because I wasn't sure if
the seismic performance would be equal
to what we planned for. So I wanted to
get a white paper on that. But we
never got confirmation. So I do agree
that descoping is a concern. I would
like to see BART or engineering Staff
to come up with a way, if they do think
there's more to be done with the price,
maybe we can consider descoping at the
award of contract? I have only done
that one in my career, but if you know
you don't have enough funding you have
alternative items to descope or maybe
working with the contractor to descope
or before the contract comes to the
Board, which is difficult, because you
are negotiating with the contractor
after the bid came in. You know
upfront what would be potentially
removed, given the constraints on the
budget. And then the other issue which
I do appreciate is maybe you could go
to that slide where it's got all the
check marks that shows you have got
some review of other Departments. I
guess we have this audit -- sorry,
let's see. The internal Audit Division
would potentially look at change
orders, I guess. Is that what we're
suggesting here?
Overview of the change orders?
>> Correct, they are currently
reviewing aspects of change orders
especially from an individual change
order by change order signoff approach.
But giving them the clear policy --
written policy direction to review
change orders at-large, and looking at
all change orders, and doing that
concurrently, because there's a risk to
the review process that makes the
review process longer and doing it
simultaneously.
>> I do like this and when I do change
orders I always had oversight. Some
would get cherry-picked because there
was concerns with the change order and
they would ask me questions if it was
compliant with the project? But it was
good to have that oversight. There was
a little bit of a delay, but it wasn't
like every change order was audited.
But they did look at the change orders
for red-flags and the Procurement
Department also has a good check on the
funding that is being used. And then
amount of change orders being used.
Because there's a lot of confusion, who
is managing the project? They might
have their own spreadsheet of their
accounting. But then the Procurement
Department doesn't have this. So it's
really great to see that we would -- we
could consider having maybe the
procurement or whoever is looking at
the financing of the contract also that
would be a different Department. Then
you have this internal Audit Division.
So I think we should have those two
Departments looking at change orders in
a systematic way, so we're not leaving
up to the Project Managers to control
everything. Basically they are
controlling the change order process
and the budget. So there's a need for
oversight. So I'm hopeful Staff comes
back to elaborate on the improvements
and get more consistent software, so
everything is documented in one place,
and people can understand -- you don't
have to have your own private file to
document what is going on with the
project. Thank you.
>> All right, VP Wright.
>> Thank you. Thank you for the
presentation as always I appreciate the
rigor of your oversight and the work
that goes into these audits. We
already touched on this in Committee,
so I won't get into all of that, but I
thought it might be helpful if BART's
management wants to share anything
about your responses to the findings
and recommendation or actions that have
been undertaken since the audit came
out?
>> Good morning, Director Wright. Not
other than we have accepted all of the
recommendations and internal auditing
Staff is working to implement
>> Excellent, thank you.
>> Director Raburn.
>> Thank you, President Hernandez.
And thank you, Claudette for pursuing
the audit of our change orders. Thank
you, Julian for your presentation. I
have two questions. The first revolves
around contingencies. And you note
that contingencies are allowances that
are built in. And my experience has
been that contingencies get swept up at
the conclusion of the project, and
they're gone, instead of maybe being
saved or reallocated to a worthy
project. And so my question is really
around did you discover any
contingencies that weren't swept up and
awarded at the conclusion of a project?
>> That is a good question, and I have
to it got a little out of scope. We
spent a lot of time looking and
tracking down change order information
that next level of contingencies which
would be have a valid place to look,
change orders was challenging enough to
get the information together.
>> Let me ask in your experience is
there a procedural mechanism for
example, the Office of Infrastructure
Delivery to reallocate contingency
funds?
>> I think that would be a good
suggestion. I do not know how often
that is happening in these cases. But
using those contingency fund and not
treating them as a certainty, I think,
would be the baseline expectation for
practices in this case.
>> Thank you. I'm seeing Sylvia Lamb,
the AGM of Our Office of Infrastructure
Delivery nod her head in agreement.
Thank you. And the other question I
have is really regarding the Board's
role. And the Board really only hears
about change orders sort of at the end
of the tailpipe. We're not part and
parcel part of that routine monitoring
that you recommend. And I do recall
when I first joined the Board I was
involved in a major project, and there
was involvement of Board Members on
Committee of oversight and we tracked
that project from inception to delivery.
I haven't seen such an effort since.
But by the way, the contingency on
that project was swept up at the end
without any alternative being put forth
to the Board. So thank you for your
report. And I'm inclined to agree that
an internal Audit Division should
routinely monitor all of our projects,
and maybe with some Board involvement.
>> All right, Director Ghosh.
>> Yes, thank you. Thank you first of
all, for such an amazing audit. I
learned so much from reading it about
how BART works. And I had a chance to
chat with Sylvia, and I think all of us
appreciate us looking out for BART and
public dollar together, which is how I
see the purpose of this audit. I think
all of the recommendations are stellar,
and I'm glad to hear that they have
been accepted. I did have a question
about is there a timeline for
implementation of those
recommendations?
I'm looking at -- yes.
>> Let me ask Dennis Markham, who is
much closer than I am, to step up to
the podium. Mr. Markham.
>> Good morning, Dennis Markham,
Director of Performance and audit. All
of the recommendations that we
estimated would be implemented either
June or July of this year. And so far
we're on-track of doing all of those,
and getting them in on-time.
>> That is great. Could we get a
little note from you when they're done?
We would appreciate it.
>> Happy to follow-up.
>> Thank you. I also had the same
question about contingency and wanted
to know if -- if there was a list of
projects that were either flagged where
the change orders took it over budget,
or were they always, you know, within
the budget and using up the
contingency? I feel like I still don't
have that picture, but I can also see
that record keeping in itself is a huge
challenge. So I'm hoping that we can
ask and get that information more
easily, so everybody can benefit from
it. And it's challenging, I think,
with an old system like ours to even
know what is under the ground every
time. So of course, we expect, you
know, I don't know what -- when I did
my house, it's like 100-year-old house,
130-year-old now. There's surprises
all the time and that is why we have
contingencies. So we have to just
accept that is part of how we do work
on our systems. And I agree that you
know, we can look at it ahead of time,
but that might mean the bid would go
up. So it's hard. We're all trying to
game contractors everybody gains the
system to make sure you profit and get
the project. So I think good record
keeping and trends is what we should be
looking at, even more than project by
project. And we should do our best to
make sure that we understand the
reasons for these change orders and how
we can leverage the amount of power
that we have as a big agency that
spends a lot of money on these to even
change industry standards. My last
question, again, I think for
management, is with descoping, is a
certain percentage off the overall
budget at which point it has to go back
to bid? Because when you are putting
something out to bid, and you're
expecting all of these different sort
of parts of the project, one big part
goes away and maybe a different
contractor may have been better at
providing the different parts?
Of course the TransBay Tube in the
grand scheme of things was a small
amount for the overall amount, but I'm
curious if we have any best practice,
or guidance around when it goes back --
is forced to go back to bid, if there's
a descoping that comes up in the early
days, or even later on?
>> So I will look to my colleague here
to my right, Jeana, to help me if I
mess this up. I don't believe we have
any regulations, any BART or
procurement regulations that requires
us to go back and re-bid, if we
significantly descope a project. I
don't think that exists.
>> I can confirm that is generally
correct, yes.
>> I guess that is the only thing that
gives me pause is just to make sure
that we understand the project, as much
as possible where there's no
significant descoping, where going back
to Director Foley's comment about
making sure that it never appears as
collusion of any kind; that you are
putting forward a certain kind of
project to bid and the project changes
substantially, but we're still keeping
the same contractor. I'm not saying
that is happening, to be clear. This
is all proactive trying to make sure
that -- yeah. Thank you.
>> Director Li.
>> Thank you. Just had some general
comment and one question. First, I
know that every one of these
performance audits is a huge amount of
work not only for the OIG and our
consultants, but also for the Staff who
are interviewed, are providing lots of
information, you know? Engaging in
back and forth and most importantly, I
really want to thank BART management
for accepting all of the
recommendations and for the work that
has already begun to implement those
recommendations. I at the end of the
very important for the processes to be
collaborative and to acknowledge every
single party is singularly focused on
improving BART. That is what we're
trying to get to. So that is all good.
And also, to Claudette, and your
office, I'm very appreciative of the
cadence of these performance audits.
These reports are exactly what we
envisioned for this office to be
focused on when we were going through
the hiring process what we had said we
wanted our OIG to be focused on. So
it's a huge amount of work for
everyone, and we're seeing the results
that are really informative for us as a
Board. Second, I think it's really
important that we're doing these
performance audits now, when things
aren't breaking down. I would say sort
of like trying to drink a lot of water
when you are already dehydrated or
trying to go to marriage counseling
when somebody is I want a divorce.
Sort of hard to fix things at that
point. So I want to be clear that the
top line on slide 7 is something that I
hope BART management and Sylvia and
Shane's teams are particularly proud of
that. We know that change orders are
in -- a necessary reality of major
capital projects, whether it's CBTC or
our power cable replacement projects,
but on the whole, change orders are
minimal. The cost increases are small,
and some of these change orders are
actually creating project savings.
Yes, the more detailed look is really
helpful to understand where there are
process recommendations and where there
are much larger variances specific
projects so it prevents us from getting
to a bad place and 15 years when
perhaps we're not here anymore that we
have a successful transit system.
Maybe it's not this slide. It is the
big chart, yes, this one. Like, this
is huge. This is a slide I want to
share with a lot of folks because I
think that from the general public,
especially, you know, there are, in
fact, some BART haters out there, that
sort of like change orders is
government bloat, you know? These
major capital projects that are wasting
all of these taxpayer dollars, and
there's no accountability. There's lot
of ram for improvement and we accepted
those recommendations and those will
be underway, but on the whole, BART has
a strong grasp on project cost and
using change orders as part of project
reality and I think is a really
important thing for us to acknowledge
here. The only question I have is sort
of a process one for management and
sort of going off of what Director
Ghosh had asked. I know I requested
this recently with the overtime audit
as well. But I would really like for
there to be some sort of follow-up
particularly with the implementation of
the recommendations being able to
track, you know, what is already been
implemented? What is in the works?
What might just take a little bit of
time? What needs to be a larger
conversation? So for management, is
this a plan how you report-back,
whether to the full Board or Audit
Committee, via email, memo or otherwise?
>> Director Li, we provide the OIG
with quarterly updates, I believe, of
our progress on every one. So I'm sure
she can share in a with the BART Board
on every audit, every recommendation we
have Staff people that provide that to
them on a quarterly basis.
>> That is excellent. I wasn't aware.
Claudette, is that possible?
>> Yes, as Deputy General Manager
said, we present bi-annually now, but
follow-up really to find the status of
recommendations are. One of the things
that I wanted to point out, I have been
hearing comments not only during this
presentation, but other presentations
about wanting information about where
the status of recommendations are. So
we're doing a deep-dive look at the
status of our recommendations and not
just looking at ones that are still
unimplemented to see the progress or
some way to assist to find ways to get
them across the finish line? But also,
to make sure things didn't become
unimplemented, which is something we
see from time to time. We are, I
think, right in the middle of betting
that done and hope to bring that to you
all and have deeper discussions where
things stand and make sure that you
have that information. As always, our
dashboard on our website provides
information on the status -- I got the
thumb's up.
>> Sorry. Okay. That is really
helpful, because reports are great.
But best reports are ones that are
leading to effective and helpful
changes, not ineffective and unhelpful
ones. Those are my comments. Thank
you so much.
>> Thank you. Director Flores.
>> Thank you all for the presentation.
And just want to second a lot of
comments from previous Directors. So I
will keep my remarks short. I
definitely want to highlight that I
agree with follow-up on different audit
reports just to see where the
implementation is. And definitely
appreciate the OIG's office doing all
of these audit, but also the Staff is
that have been involved in making sure
we're sharing data and information to
get this information to the Board. I
definitely also want to highlight the
ability, making sure that we have the
integration and standardization with
our softwares that we can take a deeper
dive into what is causing change
orders? Just for the visibility of
Staff and for the Board. I think for me
one of the takeaways from this audit:
One, BART has done a pretty good job
already, and also accepted
recommendations and has been
identifying ways to make those
improvements. So I just want to say
thank you for all of the work that has
been going on there and for the
willingness to accept those
recommendations, because I know when
people think about audits sometimes it
can be -- some people might think of it
as a scary thing. People might get in
trouble, or you know, you know -- you
pulled back behind the curtain, and
some people might be afraid of what is
behind it, but what I'm seeing is a
good, good numbers, good stats and
trends. Room for improvement,
definitely. But things that we can fix
before we get to that dehydration
stage. So thank you all so much and
look forward to seeing those updates.
>> Not seeing any other Directors with
any more questions
I do have a quick question with regards
is this the first audit change order
audit you have brought forward to the
Board?
>> Yes.
>> So moving forward, are you going to
do this on an annual basis?
>> No. That would be too much of a
lift for us to be able to do that. I
think though with the work that the
internal audit may be doing maybe
reports, but don't want to speak for
the General Manager on that. These
audits take a tremendous amount of time
and energy and we have a lot of things
on our audit plan that we need to get
through.
>> Okay. Thank you. And maybe we'll
have further conversation moving
forward as we get some more information
with regards to whether it's this audit
or other audits in the future. Thank
you for your time. I will let our Mag
move forward and she will call any
public comment that is in the public,
or online.
>> Okay. Glen Overton, come to the
podium, please.
>> Every once in a while you have to
dust off your books and keep
everything in line there. Sorry, Madam
President, Mr. General Manager and Staff
, when you look at the IG, take a
picture of your own body. The IG is
like a liver, and a liver accounts in
realtime. You got up this morning,
you're happy, because of your liver.
You go around saying thanks to your
liver, an IG is a friend of the people,
and gets value for our tax dollars
every cent. The Board of Directors,
which is your brain, can vouch for that
in realtime. Integrated, in realtime.
It doesn't ask for a budget, it's
there. :again, the IG is a friend of
the people. And maybe the IG needs to
integrate with the AI. Thank you.
>> Okay we have two online speakers.
The first is Aleta Dupree. Aleta,
please, go ahead.
>> Thanks again, President Melissa
Hernandez and Members. Aleta Dupree,
for the record, she and her with team
folds. Very informative report. I do
have some issue with language, when I
go into finding 1. I see some
sentences here, such as OID effectively
operates without meaningful check on
decisions in these areas. I'm really
concerned about how we're framing some
of this language. I don't want
anything that OIG does to be
adversarial. I know if I was running a
Department and somebody said that to
me, I would be really offended. I know
people who work for OID, they're good
people. I trust them, and I would be
honored to eat lunch with them every
day, any day. So how can we make sure
that we frame any of this language in a
way that doesn't imply adversary, I
want to be clear, change orders are a
fact of life. It happens in my house
and sometimes I have to pivot when I'm
cooking, I'm going to use more
ingredients, it's going to cost me more
money, yes. One doesn't know what a
day will bring forth. We can mitigate
risk. I'm not an expert on this, but I
have 55 years' of using the New York
City subway and I think that gives me
some leg to stand on. So there's a lot
going on. And I still am expecting a
nexus, how does this affect me, the
ordinary rider, who tap my Clipper card
and gets on the train? I ask that this
work not be about painting targets on
people's backs, but instead reflecting
the idea that BART is the People's
system. Thank you.
>> The next speaker is Barney Smits.
Barney, please unmute yourself.
>> Thank you. My name is Barney
Smits. I'm a licensed professional
engineer with over 25 years' experience
as a BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety
expert. I don't suppose any of you are
aware of the fact that I received Chief
Engineer's award for putting together
an RE training class and teaching 50
BART engineers about contract
management and RE work at BART. I
suppose that is important because I
could give the Board a class, if they
wanted on contracts and change
orders. Moving along, the most
important thing is that the IG has put
together a report. And it comes down
to is are all of these reports that the
IG is presenting, are they being
accepted by the Board? And if so, is
the Board actually going to implement
the recommendations that the IG is
recommending? So I think the IG's
recommendations update is important,
and I think a periodic, or quarterly
review of whether or not those
recommendations are being followed by
management and Staff is absolutely
critical to making sure that the public
is getting what it needs. Thank you.
>> That was last public comment or
this item.
>> Thank you.
Not seeing any other public comment,
not seeing any other questions from the
Board on item 5, we'll move on to Item
No. 6 for public comment.
>> We do not have any public comments
-- oh, we do, just one popped up.
Aleta Dupree, Aleta, please, go ahead.
>> Thanks again, President Melissa
Hernandez and Members, Aleta Dupree,
for the record, she and her with team
folds. Thank you for calling that out.
I was afraid I wouldn't speak
today, but I appreciate it. I wrote
you more letters and hope you got to
read them. I'm sure Bob
Franklin read them. I talked about a
number of different things and I frame
the thing that I say to you in your
experiences. Yes, I wish I had a part
in bringing the soul train to New York
City. I probably would have go to
trainings all the time if it was in New
York City and I think I would have
enjoyed more with images of the City.
How do we build a better BART? I try
to share with you from experience as
opposed to academic conjecture and I
want BART to be something that is not
just used, but to be enjoyed. I'm
learning things all the time. You
know, I don't know if I teach you
anything that -- I don't know if any of
you have experience with the soul
train? Don Cornelius saying it's going
to be a stone gas, peace, love and
soul. See, I grew up with some of
that, sharing with you about life in
New York, where I come from. I would
like to be with you in-person more.
It's hard. I have to travel 600 miles
to come and see you, and get to spend
time with you. It's not easy. But how
do we have the focus on the basics?
Things that are most important? Don't
want us to be preoccupied with whether
people wear skirts on BART, but to be
preoccupied making sure that we offer
high-quality transportation service
that we're known for and most of all
that everybody should practice the idea
that BART is the People's system.
Thank you.
>> Our next speaker is Chris Finn,
please come up to the mic.
>> Good morning. Chris Finn, ATU
1555. And I know BART is doing
everything they can to improve service
and attract public ridership and
increase ridership. And especially
with the connect Bay Area, to put it on
the ballot in November. The news I
received yesterday morning about BART
partnering with Uber, that was probably
the most amount of feedback I got
yesterday was concern from different
community and transit agencies and
other transit unions about advocating,
or supporting private transit rather
than advocating for other AC Transit or
other measures to cover that last mile.
So just wanted to put that out there,
again, I'm new to office. I'm just
taking office January 1st. I wasn't
privy to previous communications about
this topic. But I think it came out as
-- we might get a little more negative
feedback on that, to put that out
there. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chris. I would be happy
to speak you at a later time with
regards to the Uber. There was a price
limit on that, correct? What was the
amount
$50,000 pilot.
>> It's a pilot program and we can
talk offline, happy to do
there are no additional public comments
for this item that was the last public
comment or item 6.
>> Okay. So Item No. 7 is our
Engineering and Operations item, and I
will go ahead and let our Chair Foley
take over.
>> Thank you, Madam President.
Colleagues, we have one information
item on the E&O agenda today and that
is the root-cause investigation on the
update on the recent M-line service
disruptions. I will turn it over to
Assistant General Manager Deputy Jones
and Staff for presentation.
>> Thank you. Once again, good
morning Bus Rapid Transit Michael
Jones, before I turn it over to Sylvia
and her team to provide context for the
information that we'll sharing this
in. First, Staff with support from
consultant team has conducted a thorough
and comprehensive analysis of all of
the service disruptions that our
customers have experienced since
August of 2025. I want to definitely
state Staff has not identified a single
cause of the disruptions. Said
differently there's no smoking gun to
share this morning. However, l
evaluated all possible causes that
could have contributed to the events
and focused on all aspects of rail,
including traction power system,
Wayside equipment, as well as rolling
stock. I'm confident that as we
present our findings, it will be clear
that we evaluated everything that we
possibly could to get to root cause and
share the mitigation efforts both
completed and ongoing that should
proffers confidence to the Board and
public that we continue to operate a
safe, reliable and efficient transit
system. Lastly, I want to address
several misconceptions that Staff heard
recently from the public and Members of
the BART Board. First, there's
speculation that BART leadership has
Intel on the single root cause of these
incidents, but we're not sharing it.
This is false. Second, there's a
suggestion that insulators are the
root cause of service disruptions.
This is also false. I want to point
out that blown insulators are a
common occurrence on electrified
railroads. It happens and while it can
cause arcing, it hasn't present a
dangerous condition to cause alarm. We
have contacted several transit
properties around the country and we're
not unique in experiencing blown
insulators, and our maintenance
and mitigation standards are in line
with those agencies. We'll discuss
this in more detail during the
presentation. Third, there's
speculation this effort did not require
the effort of external consultant and
consultants don't have the expertise
necessary to increase resolving our
challenges. I can assure you that the
team we Assembled exceeds the expertise
of our in-house Staff. They are
credentialed professionals from global
firms that have decades of experience
in tackling the issues we're face.
With this context, I will turn it over
to Sylvia Lamb, AGM of infrastructure and
delivery and to point out that we have
our entire maintenance and
infrastructure team in the room and I
would like them to stand and be
recognized. So these are the
individuals that respond to the 1:00
a.m. calls, 4:00 a.m. calls when we have
these incidents and they are responding
with their frontline workforce and
mitigating these issues. These are the
people behind the challenges that we're
having, and I can guaranty that they
are totally committed to making sure
that we move this forward in a positive
direction. So with that, Ms. Lamb, I
will turn it over to you.
>> Thank you, Michael. I would like
to acknowledge also that Parsons was
the lead firm in this effort for the
root-cause analysis and they are in the
audience. To my left is Zara -- and
while there were tons of experts
involved in this investigation, working
for Parsons, multiple subs probably 50
individuals engaged, Zara is a
California PE and Chief Engineer to the
subconsultant to Parsons and worked in
the UK and USA and worked for London
Underground and worked for BART systems
with traction systems and worked on
issues for BART related to the track
engineering and so she is very familiar
with our system. As she came in, she
is also for other agencies worked at
WMATA, London Underground and other
places in U.S. and the U.K. Her
credentials are long and wide and I'm
only touching a small bit of it. But
we're happy to have her here and to
serve as the focus point of all
expertise on the project. So to get
started, I want to talk a little bit
about the scope of this investigation.
As you can see in the middle, we really
focused on the area between West
Oakland and Civic Center. So that is
not to say that if an incident popped
up that we didn't also include that
into just a check and see if it was
something holistic that was also added
to this? We did do that, but from a
root-cause analysis perspective and a
scope perspective, it was really
important for us to stay focused and
not like kind of trace a thread down.
An example of that is there was an
incident in Lake Merritt that was
incident No. 3 during this period of
time. We did go there and find it was
specifically a rod that had fallen from
the ceiling and landed which caused
that incident. So I just wanted to
make sure that we had an understanding
of what that scope was and the
timeframe, we started, we looked
incidents in August, starting August
29th. If something pops up today, the
team will go out there and look at that
as well. This is not over, but an
ongoing investigation and we're
continuing to look at any incidents
that come up within our trackway. We
followed a very scientific approach to
this. That means it had to be super
methodical and trying to get down to
root-cause analysis is not an easy
thing in a very complex system is a
high-voltage system. It's not unusual
to see arcing or sparks on our system.
So it was really important to stay
focused and keep a methodical approach
and that started with collecting data.
That meant our data that we have
in-house as far as designs, as far as
maintenance records, as far as other
work that was going on, but also the
very first thing that was done was for
a whole slew of people to go to these
incidents physically and look at them.
That is part of that collecting of the
data. So the process went through
collecting the data and then analyzing
the data, and then getting down to some
hypotheses. A fish bone diagram is
simply a graphical representation
that helps a team after collecting a
whole bunch of data to and trace
through looking for cause and effect.
It's a common diagram that is used in
lien practices different quality
practices. So this is a standard
industry in order to do these types of
investigations -- I won't go through
every single one of these, but it gives
you an idea of the extent of how the
team went through to analyze root
cause. You know, Michael said it and
kind of stole my thunder there is a
saying, this was a very thorough and
comprehensive investigation, and
report. Again, ongoing. You can look
at the amount of man hours that was put
on, the amount of field visits. So
site visits we were in the tube, you
know, 37 site visits, but that is not
just to the tube and that is not just
the Parson's team. So the consultant
team had 50 individuals engaged
throughout this process, but we were
all hands-on deck and those -- the
folks that stood up in the back are not
the only folks that are involved in
this. There's actually more folks that
didn't stand up. I was going to tell
them to stand up, but that is okay. We
have had tons of people involved.
These 37 site visits probably I would
say at least 15 of them involved going
out in the middle of the night. And
sometimes that involved going out
working all day here, going through
files of data, and then going out and
leaving this office, taking a break for
a couple of hours and going to the site
and going out into graveyard with the
power off to really investigate that.
A huge part of this, too, going through
the bottom right is the amount of
documentation that was reviewed, and
requested by Parsons and by the
consultant team. It's not unusual when
you bring a consultant in, they are
coming in cold. The first thing they
want to know is all this information,
where is this, where is this, you know?
Sometimes it could be frustrating --
make sure your mic is on. Sometimes
it's frustrating for the BART team,
because we want to get going right?
and there has to be a combination of
that because the team needs all that
information.
>> that is correct, the Parsons team
does submit over 300 RFIs and to thank
them for the very fast turnaround on
those responses. Some were same day
and did not same day, next day. So we
appreciate that.
>> There was a huge amount of data and
all the BART team was very supportive
as far as again maintenance records,
engineering records everything that
we could do and the whole team knew
this was a top priority to get this
investigation done and figure out what
is happening in your system. So as far
as when we get through the fish bone
diagram and Zara will talk about the
hypotheses. Before she does to say
again to Michael's point, other than
the Lake Merritt incident, where we do
know it was one rod that fall, every
other incident has a combination of
factors. It's not one single thing,
and there's not one single thing that
happened for all, correct, Zara?
>> That is correct. Yes.
So this slide here represents the main
group of hypotheses put together by the
Parsons team. And in some cases the
incidents are straightforward, where
there may be one or two casual factors.
In a few instances that are actually
more complicated and require detailed
analysis to determine root cause. This
represent a comprehensive look at
system as well as Substations, and
external factors and also human
factors. Thank you.
>> Thanks. So let me start with
redescribing our traction power system.
You may remember when Myat was here a
couple of months ago to give an
overview of our traction power system.
It's really important before we get
started today to talk about how our
system works and kind of work through
that. Also I want to point out at the
end of this presentation, I think
there's like two-and-a-half pages worth
of glossary. It's really hard for us
sometimes to figure out how to not use
the terms that we're always using. So
we wanted to include a glossary so it
would help. Our power comes from at
115 kV AC, the utility is then we then
step that down to 34.5kV, those are
redundant left and right cables through
the systems that feeds into the
Substation and take from AC to D.C. and
that is used to power the third
rail. The connection from the
Substation to the third rail that gets
the thousand volts out there. The
railcars have a collective shoe
assembly, which means there's a paddle
riding along the third rail, pulling
power to help it go forward and to
power the auxiliary systems within the
trains themselves. When you move the
train as and wheels are turning and
different heat, there's is current
being generated and that current needs
to go back to the Substation. So if
follow the Orange lines around, it's
really important that we close the loop
in any kind of electrical environment.
So the paddle is pulling power from the
third rail. It's moving the train
forward. It's powering the inside all
of the equipment inside of there and
the wheels and different heat are
generating current. That current goes
back out through the wheels, along the
running rails to a negative return
shunt and that shunt has a cable that
goes back to the Substation and that
closes the loop of our circuit with our
trains. Also in addition to that, we
have regenerative braking. If you have
Electric Vehicles you already know what
regenerative braking is, but for us I
will describe with where the negative
return current goes through the wheels
to the running rail as a train brakes
that excess power goes back out through
the paddle onto the third rail and
allows trains within the vicinity to
pull power from excess power as opposed
to pulling from the substation, which
again makes us more efficient. This
was in our legacy cars as in our cars
today. So as we go through this, it
really requires a lot of integration as
far as this discussion and can't look
at one thing in a bubble and say it's
it or not it and how it integrates
together? You probably remember from
the CBTC presentation how important
that systems integration is. As Zara
goes through the rest of the slides she
is going to talk about not just these
individual pieces, but also how do they
relate to each other? And so with that
I will turn it over to Zara to talk
about the very first piece.
>> Thank you very much. So we'll
start with traction power and looking
at some of the findings and the
analysis. What we're looking at on
this slide is a rough representation of
the traction power Substation
configuration in the
vicinity of the TransBay Tube and the
green icons represent those in-service.
So we'll look at the design intent,
R-2 traction power Substations on the
West side in San Francisco, there is
MTW. And it is capable of providing 10
megawatts. On the East Bay it's match
bird KTE, shown in gray, that is the
gray icon, because it's undergoing a
planned upgrade. To facilitate that
upgrade BART introduced a portable
Substation known as KPS. We looked
extensively at the dynamic of this and
the records, and it was determined that
this possible Substation has been used
elsewhere successfully on the system.
It's interesting that it has five
megawatt rectifier with the
transformer. So therefore, the overall
capacity is noted on the diagram to be
3 Megawatts. Typically on BART
traction power substation, they are 5
Megawatt typically give or take 1-2
miles apart. What is interesting while
we originally had 10 Megawatt to the
West and 10 Megawatt to East has
dropped to 3 Megawatt. This is being
analyzed and some of the hypotheses
that have been bounced around. In
addition to that, to be able to
evaluate that further. That is
happening through modeling. I would
also like to point out how to our
review of the records, this change
happened in 2021. So it has been
operating in this way for about 4-5
years and therefore, it's not
considered to be the root cause.
However, we're looking at whether any
of these small changes have moved the
needle in terms the power quality.
>> Zara said it, but I want to repeat,
that KTE, the gray Substation is out of
service because we had planned for a
couple of years before that to upgrade
that Substation. So it was a planned
out of service, and we were waiting for
-- well, not waiting, but when the
portable substation was available it
was all planned to be done this way.
>> Thank you. So another finding, and
design change that we came across
through our review now this occurred
through site inspections. I would like
to take a moment to thank the BART
structures crew, and BART maintenance
for supporting these requests. They
were through the night back-to-back. I
personally did go out and walk the
track as well to perform these
inspections. And through these
inspections we were able to verify that
during the dates of the incidents
between August and October, the cross
bonds were not in place. There should
have been ten cross bonds in place in
the TransBay Tube and the purple
represents the cross bond, essentially
a cable that connects between two
tracks and help provides additional
parts for the return current to flow
back to the Substation through both
tracks. And when upon our further
request for information, we determined
that they were removed to support a
single tracking project in 2020. And
one finding is that upon completion of
that project, the cross bonds were not
reinstalled. However, since have been
reinstalled.
>> Thank you. I should also
because this happened in 2020 and run
in this configuration for 4-5 years
it's not considered root cause, but
taken together with the previous
finding and this as well, we're looking
at cumulative impact. So this is being
analyzed through low-flow modeling.
>> We did, since you added more, we
did talk through why would those cross
bonds been removed during 2020 and when
I said negative return going back
through the running rails. So those
cross bonds connect the rails together.
So there was a concern from the team
working on that one sets of tracks
while we were single tracking on the
other side of the tracks there may be a
potential for feeling that current.
There are other ways to make sure that
doesn't happen, and so this was, I
think, put in place as kind of an extra
measure, just to make sure that those
two tracks were isolated.
>> In order to take a closer look at
what might be happening on the power
system, the Parsons team recommended
installing the power quality monitors
on the top left you will see a photo of
an actual PQA from this investigation,
PQA being power quality analyzer and
load monitoring tests were performed to
look at incoming power quality and
looking closely at the incoming current
and incoming voltage into that
Substation, as well as recording any
harmonics. If you not familiar with
the term "harmonics" think of them as
unwanted frequency and harmonics are
not of interest on this side, but could
result in a change in the D.C. ripple
and what we mean by D.C. ripple? So on
the typical Substation with a thousand
volt D.C. output much like a D.C.
battery, you would expect that to be a
constant voltage, but in practice it
does come with a small amount of
ripple. That ripple is normal. These
are 12 pulse rectifiers, and through
the process to take AC and rectify it,
it's never possible to completely
eliminate that ripple. What we were
looking at is did that increase? With
all of the minor changes here and
there, did that D.C. ripple look
different? And there were additional
loggers. BART took proactive measures
before the Parsons team started to
install D.C. loggers. So similar to
the AC loggers installed through this
investigation there were D.C. loggers
looking at the output of the
Substations. The power quality
analyzers installed to look at AC side
coming in. So that gives our team a
complete picture, and that data is
currently being analyzed in, in fact,
those power quality analyzers are in
place at the MTW Substation and they
were installed on the East Bay side at
KPS and on the West Bay side at MTW.
What was very interesting is that MTW
incoming voltage was higher than
expected. If you can squint enough you
might be able to see on the a phase,
815 volt and 810 on B and C. So this
is not the 34.5 coming in. In between
the transformer and rectifier, that
line to line voltage should be 783.
That is how we know it's higher. When
we account for the term ratio, we
calculate that back and we were able to
determine that basically what that
means is instead of 34.5 coming in,
it's closer to 35.5 on the B and C and
36.5 on the A. Overall this is a
change of less than 5%, which is
considered to be a tolerable limit.
What we are currently looking at is
what were the harmonics with that and
resulting in frequencies on the D.C.
side that perhaps the vehicles cannot
tolerate? The vehicles are equipped
with line filters so they are designed
to handle these types of variations,
but the analysis requires further look
in terms of modeling and calculations
to actually quantify that value. There
are -- there are also standards that
govern this, the en standards and ICC
standards look particularly at
electromagnet capability and immune
limits for the system and that is also
part of the analysis being performed by
this time.
>> To recap one thing said, some
fluctuation is expected and 5% is
tolerable. As long as it's -- not
sustained; right? Like a sustained
ripple could be a more problematic.
But also something that we have for
next steps and opportunities for
improvements right now in order to do
this, maintenance has to go out and put
a logger there physically. So it's
kind of a snapshot in time while that
logger is there. So outside of that
time, we're not sure when that is going
up or down? So looking for remote
monitoring tools that would allow us to
do this logging in realtime moving
forward is one of our recommendations.
>> Thank you. And with the hypothesis
that small incremental changes may have
led to an increase in that D.C. ripple,
the BART data loggers were looked at,
and the output did seem to be
consistent with D.C. ripple oof the
normal limits, but that does not mean
that they are outside of the tolerable
limits. That is why the calculations
are necessary. So in addition to that,
now we'll talk more about the negative
return and grounding and bonding. So
again thanks to the BART structures
team and BART M & E, inspections
through the TransBay Tube to field
verify all the negative return cables.
We talked briefly about the
correspondence and I won't repeat that.
There was some electrical tests
performed and what we can see there in
the lower left corner is a fluke meter.
Just looking at the resistance in
particular. This time between the
running rail and the track slab. And
in two places along the tunnel, that
resistance was low. We don't expect it
to be low. We want the running rail to
be insulated from the track slab.
There were further tests performed in
particular look at the Negative
Grounding Device, if you are not
familiar, the running rails can -- the
rail potential can increase to slightly
higher voltage. Once it reach a
specific set point, those NGDs will
Fire and that is a safety device. So
the NGD at Powell was found to be
shorted. That was taken care of by the
BART team. And after that, we did see
an overall improvement in those
resistance values.
>> So moving on to the third rail
insulators looking at extensive
including wayside inspections and
off-site inspections. A number of
insulators with were taken to an
oversight lab, pictured in the bottom
right in various conditions. Several
as founding and two new. The tests
performed in two different labs
actually included destructive testing
and non-destructive testing. Some of
the observations in the lab including
the forensic testing that was
performed, the surface layer of dirt on
some of those insulators was found to
be conductive at least on the ones that
were tested in the lab. And the shims,
which are the thin layers of material
that sit beneath the insulators help
adjust the height of insulators were
found to be damp. These findings are
not perceived to be the root cause and
there appears to be other factors that
may have initiated some of these
insulator failures and it's also worth
noting that not all of the incidents
included insulator failures. So
another finding we'll touch on later is
rail relay storage practices.
>> Sorry, if you don't mind, if I
could jump in one -- real quickly on
the insulators just to follow-up from
the earlier conversation. So there's
also been news reports that we are
cleaning the insulators and that is
partially true. We have cleaned all of
our insulators from Embarcadero to 24th
and Mission. We did that primarily
because we had incidents in this area,
which we're focusing on the root cause
now, but it takes a crew of eight
overnight to do 20 insulators. We have
over 100,000 insulator and varying
degrees of maintenance across the
industry. So I want to put out and
clarify we're not planning to clean all
100,000 plus insulators, but this area.
Thank you, Zara.
>> Let's go back one slide to point
out that the team has extensive
experience in analyzing insulator
failure. This is how we're able to for
example to determine if the insulator
was root cause or not? So looking at
the red and Black line that represents
the coverboard and thicker gray block
beneath it represents the third rail.
It's as if you are standing in front
and facing the third rail. The white
rectangles with the blue underneath
represent undamaged insulators, and the
red represents damaged insulators. In
this case we'll start with the yellow
oval with damage noted to the top of
the coverboard that would be
consistent with that damage from at the
top-down from an initiating source. We
also can see here when insulators fail
there's a characteristic usually aligned
with it and not in all cases, but we
saw it in location 8 and location c and
we have a team of Fire/Life Safety
experts on this panel that have being
involved in this review. And what is
interesting too, is that it does tail
left in the direction of travel. But
the most interesting finding is that
pattern did not exist behind insulator
B. It was nowhere to be found. The
wall was relatively clean, the tunnel
wall. But what was interesting is that
it was projected downwards onto the
track slab and in the direction of
travel. So the hypothesis that is
under evaluation right now is that
insulator b did not fail on its own.
It was an initiating event from above.
A D.C. arcing event, and we'll look at
some of the actual photos from this
incident. So once A then B would have
failed in quick succession, as well as
C. We're still evaluating A. This is
under analysis in that initiating was
at play in insulator A. On the top
right is a photo of the coverboard I
mentioned and stepped profile on the
top of that coverboard, where it's
evident based on this evidence that the
damage was from the top-down. It also
aligns with the area of the material
loss in the third rail. So for third
rail to have essentially a hole in it
of that size, that is typically due to
high-energy arcing. That would be the
type of energy required to essentially
vaporize that metal in that location.
And that is beneath it is the remnants
of the insulator and the deposition
pattern and the left is how looks on C,
directly behind where the insulator
stood.
>> I wanted to add here just to again
give kind of a level of the effort that
was put. Not only was this kind of
detail looked at, but even that when
you see that splatter behind it on the
wall, scrapings were taken of that and
sent to a forensic lab to determine
what materials that was as part of the
investigation? Just to give you a
little bit more context on how detailed
and how thorough the investigation has
been. So in addition, just to be very
thorough the team also looked at the
protection scheme and the third rail is
protected by D.C. breakers, like at
home, but much larger that can trip and
isolate faults. The review of the
records revealed that, in fact, that --
typically the D.C. breakers have an
ability to trip without an MPR. The
MPR is Multi-Function Protection Relay
that helps customize settings. We can
think of it as an additional layer of
protection. When based on the review
of the reports, these functions have
been disabled during the time of the
incidents. Now that does not mean that
the breakers didn't have the ability to
trip because they have a mechanism, but
they are more basic. It would have
relied on that basic mechanism. So
further RFIs were submitted and we
asked why they were disabled? And the
reason that was provided is that they
were nuisance tripping in the opinion
upon return to service and perhaps
Sylvia might want to weigh-in.
>> There's apparently nuisance
tripping that impacted being able to
run cars in the morning, like
consistently every morning. So we
found that they disabled these in order
to make sure that trains were running
smoothly. I also want to add though
these this had a been replaced and you
see the old one versus the new one,
although to me they don't look a whole
lot different. Our MPRs in our system
have been aging and a lot of them are
within 20-25 years old. We do have a
project, and we have had an ongoing
project to replace MPRs. We're about
60% done with that, about $20-22
million and should be completed within
months, but had not been completed.
>> Moving on to vehicles and includes
vehicle specialists, from actually all
over the world we'll start with the
collector shoe assembly and there is an
image of the typical shoe assembly and
bottom left shows the position on the
vehicle. On the bottom right is a
close-up view of the collector shoe and
the braid, and the fuse. So we'll talk
more about this on the next slide. I
just wanted to give an overview of when
it's actually located. Okay four of
these collector assemblies from the
instance were taken to an o site lab
for forensic testing.
?
>> Next slide. In addition to that
four fuses were provided to the Parsons
team by the BART vehicles team. These
fuses appear to exhibit a non-standard
failure, and they were taken to a lab
for further testing including forensic
testing. So fuses much like the fuses
that you find in your home appliances
have a fusible link that will melt if
the current exceeds that threshold.
And these fuses are different because
they are slightly larger, but they do
include that fusible link. They also
have quenching sand that helps
extinguish that arch at that point. So
when that fuse typically fails that we
would expect that to turn back, but in
this case, the sound remained white.
And we can see extensive damage to the
exterior of the fused body also known
as carbonization. The tests were
extensive, including an elementary
analyzer test on the area that looks
like brass. It was confirmed to be
brass. So those pins actually zinc or
zinc plated. And it was interesting
that brass was found there. That is
for brass to form with zinc, we need
copper and an extremely high
temperature. So it it's yet to be
confirmed, but the hypothesis is that
there was high-energy arcing in that
area. In addition to that there were
other signs, looking at the log. So if
you are not familiar with the
log, the braid is connected to the fuse
and that rectangular piece with the two
holes, thank you. That also has
material loss. You can see that
there's a kink in it. It's not
designed that way and that is another
sign there was perhaps high-energy
arcing at that point and more evidence
was looking closely at the end of the
end cap where there is beading. That
is basically those tiny little metal
balls that you can see there. That
would be indicative of perhaps a high
energy, maybe a thermal event, or arcing
within the end cap and it may have come
from the log itself. However, this is
still under analysis. Further testing
is recommended on the fuses, and we'll
have additional updates in the report.
>> The quenching sand, sorry you are
expecting that sand to be Black instead
of white. Next slide. I will start
with the rail storage. Zara brought it
up a minute ago briefly. At BART the
maintenance practice for years and
years I don't know -- like forever, has
been to do our rail in 800' sections.
And I noticed before or when talking to
one of the Directors about rail
rally and it just means replacing
the rail. That is our projects that we
do all over the place. But given the
short windows of maintenance windows
during the blanket that three hours
where the power is off, it take a long
time to get that rail moved out to the
right Section and then to do the work.
So what the practice has been is to
bring rail out, and place it Wayside
either in between the third rail and
running rail or between the two running
rail and then at a later time doing the
actual project BART maintenance are l
go out with single tracking or shut
down and replace the rail. They leave
the old rail there and over the next
period of time, come out during the
blanket and pick that rail up -- they
cut it into sections and take it out.
What the team saw, I will turn it over
to Zara
thank you, Sylvia. As part of the
analysis on track, one of the findings
was a non-standard practice to store
ribbon rail in the gap between the
rail and the third rail and to
accommodate that, it does appear that
the cantilever brackets were cutback.
So in the top photo you can see an
example of that where there's a
diagonal cut. That was cutback to
accommodate this. So why is this
important? Well, there was one event
that did appear to include the ribbon
rail, involved the ribbon rail that was
evidence of arcing found on that ribbon
rail itself. So yes.
>> Since the investigation, all that
rail has been removed in this area by
the way. And then you want to talk
about the insulated joints.
>> Insulated joints were also
carefully looked at. Insulates joints
are a normal part of the BART
infrastructure and typically used to
help with the detection of train and
negative return current has got to go
around the IJ locations that is
facilitated by jumpers around the IJ, the
D.C. current can't pass through them
without going around. What we noticed
in support of the earlier project that
was mentioned, IJs were installed at the
locations shown on that graphic. To
picture an IJ, there's an photo of that
captioned, and the graphic is showing
the green rectangles as the IJs that were
installed to support those projects.
And the purple was also green at one
time. So during the investigation, it
was determined that through the rail
relay work that was done on the M-2
track, so basically a new length of
running rail was installed on the M-2
track 10/12 and IJ was removed and two
weeks later, the other side, the
running rail on the other side was
installed, and the IJ was removed. So
basically for a period of two weeks,
there was a different operating
condition in play for one of the --
least two of the incidents. So that,
too, is being analyzed and again, it
requires modeling to fully determine
what the impacts are of this.
>> Next slide.
>> Finally just to be thorough, there
was a huge effort to look at
environmental factors and human and
external factors. So I mean the slides
are self-explanatory, but there's
evidence of water intrusion in places.
During one of the inspections, our team
also noticed there was standing water
in the TransBay Tube, only a small
area, and we submitted an RFI confirmed
to be due to a broken sump pump that
has been repaired. Generally debris as
you can see throughout platform area
and the tunnel. And rail grinding as
well, which I believe Shane with speak
more to that on the rail grinding
practices, because there are good
measures in place to minimize that. So
overall, because these incidents
happened in the TBT, the environmental
factors will probably remain as one of
the contributing factors, but not
necessarily the root cause.
>> Next slide.
>> So the final area is the interface.
The interface is basically where all
disciplines come together, and this is
where we have basically the interaction
of the shoe, and the third rail. The
team has looked at extensive data,
including the geo car Dator, looking at
track defects in particular and their
locations. The team also performed a
third rail gapping study, which
confirms the location of third rail
gaps. And one of the hypotheses is the
possibility of shoe bounce or a quality
of contact issue where a D.C. arc might
momentarily form, but if it does form,
perhaps it's being sustained, and we're
looking into this as a possibility.
But while we're looking at this it's
also important to remember that a small
amount of arcing is also normal on
major D.C. electrified third rail
systems. It's momentarily and not
expected to be a sustained arc. Once
the D.C. arc does form, it's difficult
to break that arc.
>> Next slide. These are all of the
improvements that have been implemented
while the roots cause analysis team has
been working on the investigation. So
I just want to mention that the first
one up there is that there was a -- not
our structure, but San Francisco at the
San Francisco transition structure,
there were two transformers that had
been out of service, one from, I think,
December of 2024 and one in February.
That has been since put back in place.
But all of ones with check marks is
what maintenance has done for instance
to restore the cross bond and clean
up debris, you know? As Michael
mentioned cleaning the insulators, and
also looking at the repairs of the
negative return device that one short
was repaired, but we're looking at all
of the other device as well. And
looking at which ones need to be
prioritized to be repaired or replaced.
There is already a project for that
for maintenance to do that replacement.
And RS & S is looking at different
vehicles and maintenance has removed
the ribbon rail and also been replacing
direct fixation pads, which were found
to also be degraded and also had some
moisture. Again, that is a project
being done by maintenance. Next slide.
Do you want to talk about these? So
in each -- I will talk about them. So
we said in the beginning that for each
incident it was most likely multiple
things that had caused those incidents.
And there wasn't, you know, even
though we're kind of combining these
into categories, there wasn't like one
thing that affected every single
incident. So this is just kind of a
breakdown of the incidents that
happened, and what were the potential
causes related to that? Again, except
for incident 3, where we know there was
a rod that fell from the ceiling, that
had that impact. Next slide. And next
steps, before I get started, I just
want to say the picture on the right is
not the BART system. It's a picture
from the rail inspection vehicle
software to use for display purposes.
But the next steps, there's a couple of
big ones. First is the finish the
modeling that the consultant is doing
of this area. They are putting in
every single piece of equipment,
everything in the system, just
everything having to do with that.
There's a couple of things that are
good with that. One, it's going to
help us run different scenarios to
validate the causes that we think about
-- that we have come up, or the team
has come up with. And also be able to
run scenarios to see if we can recreate
that explosion, or arcing digitally as
opposed to physically? We're also
looking at opportunities to better
maintain our insulators, whether that
means looking at different design and
materials being used. Nationally we
have already been in touch with many
other agencies on their cleaning
practices, as well as the type of
insulators that they use. And Zara
mentioned for the vehicles we're
conducting some additional vibration
studies, and tests, on the collector
shoes. And then for policy and
procedures, working with safety, I
think between safety and maintenance to
develop a configuration control type
document, and procedures. So that when
certain changes are made in the system,
they are signed off. Like, that
everybody knows that has happened, and
they all agree to why it happened, and
in that document, or in that procedure,
also what is the date for that to be
put back the way it should be. So that
is definitely an opportunity for
us. I mentioned earlier about having
constant continual remote monitoring,
and logging tools. I want to note and
one of the reasons that we added the
picture to the right, you guys, most
people are familiar with our rail
inspection vehicle. We use that for
mostly we have been using it mostly for
track, looking at track defect and
needs there. Just this week we started
running it with power on to use that
vehicle to look for any heat anomalies
or power anomalies in that area. They
have done two runs this week and that
is also something we'll evaluate the
data that we're getting from there and
how helpful that will be in future.
With the modeling depending how it
turns out it may be that we expand to
other places in the system to help
identify and be proactive about any
potential vulnerabilities. With that,
next slide. We'll take questions.
>> Thank you Michael, Sylvia and Zara.
I appreciate the very in-depth
presentation about these incidents.
Let us first turn to public comment
before we go to Directors comments.
District Secretary, who do you have for
us?
>> We have four public comments at the
moment. The first is Glen Overton.
Glen, please come up.
Madam President, Mr. General Manager
and staff, Board of Directors,
California in 2024 was a 4.1 billion --
trillion dollar economy. What part of
that economy does BART generate? You
have objective or subjective accounting
. I don't care whether it's objective
or subjective. The State needs to
realize its responsibility to refurbish
a more than 50-year-old system.
Those parts need changing. We take
care our bodies, we take care of our
homes, we stitch our clothes, mend our
socks, we don't take care of insulators?
Because of budget neglect or something
of that sort? $4.1 trillion in 2024
budget and all we're asking for is a
budget that will renew this system.
>> Thank you, Glen.
>> Jerry Grace. Followed by Barney
Smits, Aleta Dupree and Roland. Jerry.
>> Good morning. I hope this is
still morning. Good afternoon. I
don't know which is which? But I
appear because will you please put the
picture No. 13, please? I wish -- I
thought there was a picture. I'm
trying to point out to you guys about
the picture up there on that screen,
because what you used for Clipper and
that machine -- I brought it up last
time. How for me, use that machine,
because I do not know how to use that
kind of machine. Either BART's
machine, that one, AC Transit and the
one before that changed it. You have
San Francisco -- I don't like that one
too much. And the same thing I just
saw now, the yellow one. I don't know
how to use that one, and San Francisco
Muni one. But everybody else has the
same one, the gray one. Better -- the
yellow one, or the Muni one. I don't
like that one too much. I do not know
how to use that machine. I tried to
use it once before. I do not know how
to do it. What I'm hoping you
understand what I mean, please I wish
somebody or someone or somebody could
show me how to use that kind of
machine. I ask somebody once before in
San Francisco and nobody at all can
help me and nobody there at all to help
me use the machine, and add more money
on Clipper. Thank you.
>> Barney Smits. Please, go ahead.
>> Actually, Bob, I think GM Powers
was going to respond
I will make it my business to help Mr.
Grace to learn that machine,
Chairperson Foley.
>> Appreciate it, thank you.
>>> Barney.
>> Thank you. My name is Barney Smits
I'm a licensed professional engineer
with over 25 years' experience as
a BART engineer and Fire/Life Safety
expert. Looking at the report, I'm not
sure what the hired expert consultants
provided BART? There's no definitive
conclusion. The report does not
clearly present a root cause for these
traction power arcing flash over and
Fire incidents. Of the nine incidents
investigated in the report, one within
Lake Merritt station appears to be a
human error and the other has no
comment. That leaves seven incidents,
two of which were in the TransBay Tube.
What is the root cause? It's clear
from the report that five of the seven
remaining incidents have four or more
possible causes. And that six of the
seven incidents have traction power
transients as a cause and all seven
incidents have environmental factors as
a cause. Defined as metal dust, rail
dust, on the insulator and moisture in
the air. While some tunnels are very
wet like the poorly could be structed
tunnel from Colma to the airport, they
are not relevant. The TransBay Tube is
very dry. So approximately five of the
seven incidents are in try areas,
leaving metal rail dust as the most
likely root caused. Since insulator
cleaning stopped five years ago, but
was restored in December, note eight
incidents took place in the three
months between late August and late
November. And only one incident under
investigation has happened since the
cleaning of the insulators restarted in
December. The missing cross bonds are
likely a contributing factor as
electrical power will choose the
shortest distance to complete the
circuit and the missing cross bonds
forced it to move down the dust
costed insulators and note the
significant coverboard damage that
indicates Fire and is the source of the
smoke had a hindered the operations in
the TransBay Tube. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Barney. Next
speaker is Aleta Dupree.
>> Thank you, Chair Mark Foley and
Members. Aleta Dupree, for the record,
she and her representing team folds,
swearing skirt folds. Thank you for
the report. I think it's comprehensive
and helpful and I like going to the
force. These incidents are like
snowflakes, none is really like the
other. They may have common themes.
But they still have difference even if
they are nuanced. Arcing in the system
does happen. I go to New York and I
see arcing in the subway all the time.
I was riding a METRO North train from
New Haven Connecticut and I was in the
big running through the big railyard
that lead into Grand Central Terminal
located in New York City and maybe 20
tracks wide there was a big bang flash
that lit up the whole tunnel. I think
it kicked up dust, that is arcing for
you and we perceive it as normal and
I'm sure they have ways that they saw
what happened and addressed it. I
appreciate the explanations about AC
and D.C., and ripple, I know it's not
the same thing as the wine or alcohol
known as ripple. You know, AC is like
skirt with folds and D.C. is like a
skirt that doesn't have folds. This is
what I have seen. Now how do we make
sure these things don't happen again?
And I do know Bob Powers and Michael
Jones our management team does take
very serious -- does take safety very
seriously to the point of being
paramount
>> I ask that you take it seriously
too and remember that BART is the
People's system. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Aleta.
>> And our last speaker is Roland,
Roland, please, go ahead thank you,
>> Good morning. Happy New Year.
Well, I just wanted to express my
personal gratitude for the quality of
this report.
And I'm going to circle back eleven
years to show you how to move forward
in terms of transparency. I'm talking
about the incidents when we were
getting voltage surges. We know now
the voltage, 750, 783 and we're surging
to 1500 volts. What was happening is
that people when going, profiling the
rail, but not picking up the shavings,
and what ended up happening that we
have two sections, with the same
Section of third rail at the same time
and that is how we ended up with 1500
volts. And I'm not going to get into
details how we eventually figured that
out, but what I can tell you is that
what I'm telling you is probably the
first time you ever heard of it. There
was a complete Blackout. There was no
explanation, and suddenly the problem
disappeared, and you know, people just
went on with their business. So FAST
forward ten-plus years and look at
today, the transparency, the amount of
analyses, and that is a direct result
of good governance. Thank you, BART.
We're in good hands. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Roland.
>> That was the last public speaker.
>> All right. I will now turn to
Director comments. I do not see any
Directors in the queue at this point.
Director Raburn.
>> Well, I'm first. I really don't
feel qualified to speak elaborately on
this. My academic training was no in
the operation of high-voltage
electrical systems as the BART and
hence I have refused to
speculate on the nine incidents that
involved power that disrupted service
between August 29th and December 5th.
Instead of I have encourage our General
Manager to seek explanations from
professionals, and implement the
necessary changes to end further
delays. That is all of our goals, I'm
sure. I'm satisfied that the
root-cause analysis report we're
reviewing followed a rigorous
investigation and scientific process.
Is the report conclusive? No, but it
identified several contributing factors
that BART has already changed
operational procedure and advanced
numerous infrastructure changes as
illustrated on page 23 of the report.
This allows me a degree of optimism
that we're doing our best to protect
our passengers from harm, delay. As
well in the near-term I anticipate
completing the upgrade to the 10
megawatt Transbay East Substation KTE
abbreviation to replace the 3 megawatt
Substation and I also anticipate the
operation of BART's modern rail
geometry car to inspect the system
while the system is energized. And
And with those additional data point
and removing variations in some of the
potential causes by correcting the
cross bonds, I think that is a critical
aspect of what we have done already.
So all I can say is good work so far,
and let's keep working at it until we
get it done to no defects. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other Director
comments? We have virtual system you
can use. Director Ames.
>> Sorry. I'm having a little
technical problem with my computer.
Okay. Sorry. I would like to go to
slide 3. I can't look at the slides --
I need some technical support. Can we
go to slide 3, please? Yes.
So on August 29th, we had an
evaluation. Staff did an evaluation on
the smoke in the tube. And it was on
August 29th, and we also had two other
incidents that I don't see on there.
There were three separate incidents.
They were not collectively the problem.
It was very specific, different
locations. So we had a power outage at
West Oakland in the morning around 5:00
a.m.
So that was likely due to a malfunction
with the switches, which maybe even
could equate to something that happened
in San Leandro, but not as bad. But we
lost power completely in West Oakland.
Then in the afternoon, there was a
train that lost a paddle, a car, lost a
paddle and a fuse was blown and there
was a small Fire. That was in the
afternoon around 2:00 and then the
smoke in the tunnel in the commute hour
at 5:00ment so I don't think
collectively there's are forming with
hypotheses and more questions. I
think we have isolated events that we
need to hone in on. I just want to --
so right now I don't see those
incidents on August 29th. Right now it
looks like we're just focusing on loud
noises insulator flashes, but I really
want to hone in on August 29th and get
more information on this. Because I do
think we can get to the bottom of the
root cause quickly. Although we have a
lot of good analyses that shows
there's room for improvement. I wanted
to go to like slide -- I guess 4. So
this to me is a slide that is telling
because you need to define the problem
before you collect the data. So did we
define the problem here? It doesn't
look like we did. We went to this
really giant field of possibilities,
and created hypotheses. So this is a
frustrating report, although there's a
lot of good data to look at, but I
don't see massive -- you know, studies,
and more follow-up in the fashion that
is being presented today. But so
again, I will go back to August 29th.
I would say what data did we collect
for example, on the outage -- power
outage at West Oakland? I would like
to know what that is. And then why are
we having paddles being removed off the
train car? And then we have got the
insulator problems, which is likely the
cause of the TransBay Tube smoke event.
Because I do recall when we got an
evaluation from Staff September 11th
there was a blown insulator picture.
That was the 29th. And we showed the
blown insulator, and it looked
conclusive it was an insulator. So
when we start compiling data, did you
-- I guess I would ask the consultant,
doing these RFIs and you got
information, did you get information on
the maintenance of the insulators?
>> Yes.
>> So what was the determination of
the maintenance on the insulators -- I
apologize for my voice.
>> Well, we reviewed all of the
record and it does appear there is
maintenance process in place for the
insulators. We did also obtain that
data on the West Oakland outage you are
referring to. We have looked extensive
as well at SCADA logs, and the
field fields and forensics. Overall,
the information is as presented here.
There is nothing evidence to currently
suggest that the insulator was the root
cause of that particular incident at
this stage.
>> I just want to drill-down on this
and to understand what was the
maintenance for the insulators when
this data collection started? I just
want to know what was given to the
consultant, and the data of what we did
on the insulators? What was the
maintenance program? So maybe you got
to get back to me on this.
>> Well, I think there's some
confusion. So I will speak up and go
from here. There is some Maximo data
that the consultants looked for. There
is also replacement projects that say
if there's a, you know, if there's a
defect or see a defect inspecting it,
we should replace the insulators. I
think what you may be getting to the
question is did we have a cleaning
process in place and the answer I think
is no, we did not is have a cleaning
protocol in place.
>> Can we get the information of what
we're doing and why we stopped the
cleaning? It's a question I get often
from the press.
>> Understood.
>> So I would like to get that and I
appreciate you trying to be transparent
on this
sorry, Director Ames, the last cleaning
program we had, my understanding we
were using dry ice and it was
deteriorating the quality of insulators
and why we deferred that going forward.
>> And to get the detail of why it was
happening and why it stopped, just on
the cleaning itself of the insulators?
So let's -- I think did you on the data
collection, maybe we can jump over to
another slide, because this is not very
exciting. We can go to the paddle,
showing the paddle of the train. The
collector paddle. You want to do
another slide? Yeah. So that I would
like to know why that paddle got
dislodged off the car, and how many
times that has happened during this
timeframe? So to me this is another
data point that is interesting, like
what happened? And I know you will
evaluate this, I guess it's called a
collector shoe, sorry, not called a
paddle. Sorry. But to find out why
these paddles are coming off the cars
is a concern. This is a separate issue
now. We have insulator and now we have
this issue. This is a car issue, train
car issue. And if a paddle comes off,
and doesn't connect with the third
rail, what happens to the system? Does
a Fire start? Does the fuse blow?
Because that was my understanding.
>> Director Ames, I'm going to ask Leo
Pica, our Chief rolling stock Officer to
answer that question. I think Zara and
Leo will say that is a common
occurrence as well. But I will let Leo
speak for himself.
>> Thank you.
>> Hello Directors. Leo Pica, Chief
Mechanical Officer RS&S. They are
designed to break with a notch in there
and when the paddle breaks, the
collector on the car will -- and if two
paddles break, the rest of the cars
will take over. So they are designed
to break, for the paddle to break
damage to collector assembly, that
Assembly with the fuse, and other items.
>> Is it your understanding that if a
paddle breaks, something -- the fuse in
the train car could blow from your
experience?
>> So the paddle is what connects to
the third rail. So once the paddle is
broken, no power is going to the fuse,
or collector assembly. And the
Assembly on the other side of the car
take over. Also when the trains
travel, each car has four paddles. So
as the train is traveling any one of
those paddles will collect power from
the third rail.
>> My understanding there's a surge of
power without the paddle and then the
fuse blows, is that not correct?
Maybe I could ask the consultant this
and to know the nexus between the blown
fuse in the train car and the paddle
issue? So maybe this can be done
further -- I just thought we might have
none.
>> Director Ames, we're happy to bring
you into the office and walk you
through, you know, and trace the power
from the shoe collector to the paddle.
Happy to bring you into the with Leo
and walk you through very patiently all
of those mechanics.
>> Okay. I think it would be good to
know, because I know there was a Fire
that happened when that paddle came
off, a few was blown. It was a very
small Fire. It got resolved and it was
all August 29th. So I think that is a
separate issue, and I'm glad you are
looking at this to find out what is
happening -- I guess, there's another
picture of the fuse. But you have got
fuses in the train cars that are also a
problem. So I would like to know the
nexus of what is happening between the
two system and that is a train car
issue. And I think I just wanted to
maybe conclude to -- because I know I
have a lot of questions probably.
Maybe to the next steps. Right before
the next steps. I just want to point
out something to the consultant.
Because I know you have worked, WMATA,
Washington Transportation Authority in
Washington, D.C., the Federal Transit
Administration actually gave a safety
directive that is related to
insulators. Excuse me, let me look
here -- where is it? Apologize. Okay.
This is from the FTA "safety
directive." Must update design
specifications for third rail insulator
and establish update procedures for
testing, storage, install, inspect,
cleaning and replacement. And it goes
into details related to that directive.
The other directive is must explain
the original tenet and define the
rationale for stopping the program and
clarify intentions to reinstate the
program of putting in -- I guess what
they did, they stopped, they stopped
repairing their insulators or stop
cleaning their insulators. To me, this
is a root cause and I know Staff says,
we don't know what the root cause is
for the insulator, but it's a tried and
trued issue, but finding out that we
didn't maintain the insulators could be
something that FTA is interested in.
Because they clearly told WMATA and directed
them to further replace the insulator
and maintain the insulators. So this
is very serious to me. I don't know
what we're going to do with this
report? I don't know if FTA is going
to get involved with this? I don't
really want them to get involved, but I
would like to go to next steps, please.
Because I think it gets to what you
want to do.
this is great. This is what the FTA
asked them to do. I wanted to be a
direct result of what we didn't do, we
didn't clean, that step.
>> To be clear, Director, I would
caution us and the Deputy General
Manager was very clear and our experts
in the field were very clear, that the
cleanliness of the insulators was not
the root cause. So I would just
caution us to be choose your words
wisely. Because as of right now, that
is not the case. So I just have to
push back and ask you to be careful
there.
>> Okay, maybe we get some more data
and we can figure out, this is a link.
The lack of cleaning relates to a new
program less flashovers, less
explosions. I do appreciate that you
clean the insulators in the tube. So
that is a step forward. I know Shane
said he was going to start cleaning the
insulator, even though he knew the
report was coming out.
>> Director, I'm going to be clear,
from our experts the cleanliness of the
insulators by itself was not the
singular root cause. You heard that
and you keep trying to make the
statement that it is -- it is not that.
>> So are we going -- are we deciding
right now that it's not true, that the
cleaning has nothing to do with the
exploding insulators?
>> Isolated just the cleanliness of
the insulators, no.
>> Okay. I beg to differ. If we go
back in time, I would like back to in
time to see what insulators blew up
with BART's history? And find out what
we did? If an innocent -- if there was
insulator issue with BART, I would like
to know to validate what we're saying.
I see your point not to jump to
conclusion, but to see more maintenance
and historical data that happened to
BART with blown insulators, and then
we're done.
>> I don't know if we're ever done,
Director. It's continually improvement
is what we're about. I would just say
Director, I hope you are with me and
Michael and the team up here. What
we're trying to do is -- is minimize
these occurrences, eliminate these
occurrences; right? And with the best
probable data that we have. That is
where we want your help with; right?
And we have 100,000 insulators and
insulators go out not just on BART, but
other systems. So we're doing the work
right now. So you know, we're moving
forward to collect the data, to find
out where the risk points are,
eliminate those risks moving forward.
I'm not going back ten years and
looking at every single insulators that
went out. I'm not.
>> I just want to try to correlate the
cleaning related to the exploding
insulators. That is all
I'm moving forward to make this
world-class operation even more
world-class, Director Ames.
>> Right I'm on the same page with
that. Going to the vehicles. We want
to look at the vibration study and the
fuse Assembly. I just like to know can
we get more information of why this
issues are coming up and if that is
causing flashover?
>> Again, the shoes, the paddles and
shoes, Leo will bring you in. I'm
trying to help us move this discussion
forward, because I want to hear if we
have missed anything, if you think that
we're short here or need to pay
attention more there. But the design
-- happy to bring you in, Director
answer, and give you a graduate-level
course with Leo and his team on the
design and how the paddles are designed
to the shoes, the cars, and how --
happy to do that and walk you through
very with great detail, and so that you
can fully understand how that works.
>> And I want to can be I do want to
say to BART that we have done a lot of
work in the system. And we replaced
34.5kv cable from Balboa to the West
portal. We replaced a lot of equipment
related to grounding, monitoring the
currents in the system. Sylvia you had
brought up. Do you want to show that
slide you brought up that shows we
spent $22 million? I think that was
another slide you had on there.
>> That is not on the slide, but it's
the MPRs. If we go to the MPRs.
>> The Multi-Function Protection
Relays.
>> Yes.
>> We have a project in place that is
funded for about $20-22 million to
replace those systemwide,
and retrofitting of negative
grounding which is critical for
limiting voltage. So I say BART is
doing a good job. You are seeing an
assessment of our system that may not
be the root cause of the insulators,
but you are basically showing that it
works. I don't see a -- I don't see a
real threat here based on what the
consultant provided other than we do
have some problems with the trains, the
paddles, fuses and insulators and power
outages with the Substation going out.
I would like to know exactly how we
resolved that particular issue, which
was on the 29th.
>> Director Ames, for the record, the
things that you just said are not
accurate. We have -- and unless,
unless you are making the assertions
that the consultants that we have hired
are not professionals and not
credentialed and willing to risk their
credentials.
>> Which comment was that?
>> We have problems with the fuse and
insulators. Unless you saying that the
Parsons team, a global firm is
willfully at this dais telling
untruths, your comments are inaccurate.
>> I want to clear about this, I don't
think we have enough information on the
insulators and the maintenance is and
with what we're doing or not doing and
I just read that WMATA had a safety
directive to maintain their insulators
and what we're going to do?
>> Director Ames?
>> Yes.
>> We have other Directors in the
queue.
>> Okay. I will move on. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Vice President Wright
followed by Director Ghosh.
>> Thank you. I guess I have to start
by saying we're not the WMATA Board.
Sylvia, have been issued an directives
on insulator cleaning?
>> No.
>> Zara, in your opinion, is insulator
a problem at BART?
>> Certainly that is an issue
everywhere, not just at BART.
>> I think the question is do you
think that is a problem at BART?
>> Do you think it's the root cause of
this?
>> Ultimately, I would say that based
on the evidence it does not appear to
have been the root cause. With the
photo that we presented earlier with
the coverboard damage, that is directly
above the insulator and even a comment
from Barney Smits, who also did
weigh-in on that, it's coming from above
the flashover is irrelevant to some
event, with the hypes even with a new
insulator at that location, subject to
that type of event from above it would
have probably also failed in that way.
So we're well-aware of all of the
circumstances and if you look back at
that slide, there were a number of
other insulators in between that were
subjected to similar environmental
conditions, and they did not fail.
There were also instances that do not
include insulator failures, and even
the ones that did have some insulator
involvement, those insulators in some
cases there's a glow, which we describe
as Corona discharge and they actually
didn't fully fail and didn't flashover,
and speaks to the resilience of some of
the insulators. So we're fully aware,
of course there's no such thing as a
perfect insulator and our team has read
the WMATA report and we're well-aware
of that. But these are different
circumstances as to what WMATA was
dealing with.
>> Thank you, on that particular
question sounds conclusive to me.
Thank you, Zara, thank you, Sylvia,
thank you, Shane and thank you, Bob. I
say BART reliability is great, and
customer satisfaction at historic highs
all of that is true. None of that
should be lost in this conversation and
none of that excuses the service shut
down and disruptions. I know our
management knows that. And I don't
think anyone is here making excuses. I
think the detail and rigor of this
analysis speaks for itself. And it
shows this is a serious problem that
we're taking seriously. I do have
questions, Sylvia. I'm sorry I didn't
ask more in our briefing and I'm sorry,
it took me a while to absorb
this. This is a really substantive
analysis and I think it does a
disservice to the rigor of the work to
limit to a slide deck and memo. I
talked about this before, but the item
before this just for example had a
27-page detailed report in the packet
that is the real meat of that item.
And I'm disappointed we didn't have
that here. I know this is a norm for
BART, but I think it's a norm that we
need to change. Now onto the slides
and questions. For this, I really
want to focus on the thing in our
control and decisions that were made by
BART, because there's a lot of things
that are not in our control. Can we go
to slide 12?
>> Sylvia, you can change the slide
now.
>> Thank you. I'm still trying to wrap
my head around this a little bit. I
understand why the cross bond were
removed and I don't understand why they
weren't put back and I don't understand
why for nearly six years we went
without what seems a pretty possible
aspect of our system as designed? Can
you speak to that bit more?
>> I will turn it over to Shane Edwards,
AGM of Operations.
>> Thank you. Director, first of all,
no excuses. But that being said, it
was initially done as a result of a
safety factor that was recognized
during the TBT retrofit project. In
order to isolate the track they were
working on, you have to make it an
island and disconnect from the other
track with current that has to go
somewhere. So every night they would
go in at 9:00 p.m. during revenue
service.
>> I'm sorry, just in the interest of
time, I understand why it happened and
just asked why they weren't put back
and why it took six years to talk about
it
>> Sylvia mentioned to work on from
the project to maintenance standpoint
and we're usually the first ones in and
last ones out, and that is something
that you can't close out the project or
take in this case close a project out
with underbudget, you know on-schedule.
And we shouldn't just report that out.
We should report that all things have
been put back in the same configuration
that they were prior to the project
starting.
>> Director, just to be clear -- you
know, Sylvia has got it together moving
forward. But you know, you're
absolutely right. They came out with
the TransBay Tube project and they
should have put back in there. There's
no two ways. We didn't put them back
in; right? And that is on the people
up here, that is on the people in the
audience here from the maintenance
folks and operations folks. They
should have been put back in, you know?
With that project, or that project
should have had operations put them
back in. So they are back in now. She
has got the change stuff in, but you
know, I have had this discussion. That
same question on Tuesday, you know,
take them out, fine for safety thing,
but they should have been put back in
with that project. There is no two
ways about that and we're owning that
and Shane knows that. He is not going
to sugar-coat over that, that those
bonds should have been put back in.
>> Thank you. I appreciate that.
Just to clarify what you said as kind
of action we're taking in response, do
we now have just sort of standardized
project language or contract language
on returning work sites to normal
working order?
>> Director Wright, we do not have
that today. But we will have it within
the next oh, I don't know few weeks for
that part. And then we're working with
safety on what would be the right
configuration control or change control
process, because that is something that
would -- so if this type of event
happens in the past, who all needs to
sign-off, that they all agree stack
hands and the date they will be put
back. Yes.
>> Are we look at other projects that
have happened, just to make sure this
kind of thing didn't happen elsewhere?
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> Thank you.
Slide 17 on MPRs being disabled.
Were these considered in a State of Good
Repair as disabled or considered past
their useful life?
>> They were considered past their
useful life, which is why we have a
project to replace them all.
>> Excellent, that speaks to me for
the funding that we have for capital
work. Slide 20 on storage.
Something you said on
this slide has stuck with me, which is
the way we were storing railways was
a maintenance project forever, and
that sentiment to me might be one of
the root causes here. I don't know how
many longstanding practices that we
might have that are not best practices?
I'm not the expert, and I'm not trying
to pretend I am. But I do think we
should be thinking about a procedure
commitment to review and not limited to
the causes that we have looked at
through this analysis, but across our
maintenance work.
Slide 23. I don't need it now.
But I would love it if you could
follow-up with implementation timeline
for all of the in-progress
improvements. I would also love
implementation timeline for the next
steps listed on slide 25.
>> So we -- we brought that up at our
prep meeting, Director. We'll pull
together an update, you know, on all of
those that are in progress where we
are, the timeline and we'll provide
that all that information to the entire
Board.
>> Thank you. I really appreciate.
And just in general it has been talked,
but it seems to me this is more an
interim update than a final report, am
I correct in my judgment?
>> We're not done with all of the
investigation, yes.
>> I think that is fine. I'm glad we
didn't wait for conclusion to have a
conversation about this. I do hope
this comes back to the Board as a final
report when it's ready and trust that
will happen. Just to summarize, I
think we have -- confirm. Thank you.
Just to summarize, I think we have done
a lot of work to understand what has
happened. I think we're doing a lot of
things to address potential causes and
prevent these disruptions from
happening again. And we don't have a
short answer to what is causing this,
because this is lots of different
things at different time and different
places and it's a complex system. It's
frustrating, but it's honest. What I
want to focus on is having clear
timeframes for next steps that we're
taking. I think we need a clear
commitment to broader review of
longstanding maintenance practices and
just the fact that you mentioned
briefly we haven't had anyone signing
off on system changes is alarming to
me. I think we need to do a better job
making our performance metrics easily
accessible to the public, so they don't
only Lear or see them when they are bad
and I think we need to have 134
conversations on responsibility and
accountability on this, because BART is
essential infrastructure for the Bay
Area, and that means we can't fail and
we have it's not about being punitive,
but taking responsibility and I want to
close again by thanking everyone who
contributed to this work immense amount
of work that has gone into it. It's
not conclusive. It's critical. It's
comprehensive and it's deeply
appreciated. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Director Ghosh,
follow by Director Flores.
>> Thank you. I think I shared this
during our briefing this is a lot for
someone when is not an engineer to
internalize. At the same time, the
Board is not the only people who are
looking at these reports. So I truly
appreciate the depth, the detail, the
rigor, and the transparency, and the
vulnerability with which we're sharing
this information. I think it's really
critical and important to do it in that
way. And I think it would be nice if
we had a clear root cause, that it
wasn't so messy. That we could just
have the insulators and start cleaning
them. So I think, you know, we have to
keep that in mind, the easy answer
would be to have a clear root cause.
The more difficult answer is it's a
fragile system in many ways that a lot
of folks work to keep resilient, and
work on redundancies to keep BART sort
of going, and moving. And again, to
Director Wright's -- to VP Wright's
point we're seeing really high
satisfaction with BART's service right
now. That being said, I do have to say
that these kind of failures are
devastating for our riders. My bus was
ten minutes late today and just the
stress of waiting, knowing if I'm going
to make it to the meeting on time? It
really messes with your day, with your
job, with your life, especially it
messes with our freeways, you know? It
really does drive home the point that
we're a critical part of moving people
around the bay. So we do have to do
better. But the responsibility for
that doesn't just lay with BART, but
lays with our funding and lies with
historical underinvestment in the
maintenance of our public transit
systems. All of that. So I hope that
we -- I don't hope. I know the Board
has been very clear that we want you to
look at this, and we want you to look
at it in-depth and to figure out
everything that we could be doing
better to avoid these incidents in the
future. So I would like you all to
continue on this, and report-back on
these sort of scenarios. And to
understand how electricity moves
through our system and what we can do
to make it better? I think there are
benefits to the study, just in figuring
out if there are small things across
the system we doing better? It's
almost like an audit of how our system
works day-to-day. What are some best
practices that we can implement? Along
with understanding that some of these
challenges are round how much time do
we have to do this work? I think with
the storage of the rails with the
limited time to do the work and phasing
it. So the solutions will not be just
engineering. It will also be human
factor and processes, and we have to
make sure that in the process of doing
this, we don't create any new issues
especially when we're so focused -- if
you are so focused on the insulators
and know we stopped cleaning them to
avoid other issues. So it's a little
bit of game to figure out, you know,
how to make the system work for us in
the best way able to. I did want to ask
in your further analyses, is there any
incorporation the schedule changes that
happened just before the first
incident? I think August 11th is when
some schedule changes happened. I'm
curious about that, or if you have
looked at it and put it aside as this
is not a factor? I didn't hear that
being discussed. And then the second
thing is just looking at where the
incidents happened is very much in that
particular area. And that particular
area does see from my understanding,
the most amount of train traffic
compared to any other part of the
system. So I'm also just curious if
you had any kind of control sample
where that is comparable -- where it
may not exactly there, but somewhere
else that seems the same train traffic
and can be tested in any way? As a
layperson, the schedule change and that
particular Section and in the load flow
analysis that you are doing is that
something that you will consider or
plans to consider or has it been put
aside?
>> That is absolutely a good question.
We did look at schedule change and the
impact and also one of the things that
we asked for, and did review is for
instance on the 8/29 incident in the
afternoon, to look at all of the trains
and the car, the number of cars and
where they were just past West Oakland
and past civic center on a map to see
where they were and the configuration?
We also compared that to exactly the
way the system looked a month earlier
to see how many cars and see if there
was anything? And there was nothing
mind blowing out of there, but when we
do the modeling to put in the
train cars and whether they are
accelerating or decelerating and the
negative return if anything come out of
that is one of the values of that.
>> I appreciate that. I would have
loved it to be one of these sort of
bullet points in that slide because I
think it's so specific to where it
happened, that addressing that will be
important to us and understanding the
entire system. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Director Flores.
>> Thank you for the presentation. I
just want to begin by stating that I
think what has been clearly said, but
want to re-emphasize it our customer
and taxpayers deserve transparency
accountability and quality service and
this presentation is part of that
process. I believe that having an
outside group investigate these
incidents to provide an outside and
non-biased perspective is important,
just to make sure we're not missing
anything. And while more analysis work
needs to be done, it's important that
we have that information early right
now, so that we can share that out with
the public. And glad this is not --
it's not a final report. We're
expecting that to come back. So that
we can have more concrete information
that is taking place. So just with
that being said, I do want to thank you
all for next steps and for making sure
that we get more details on that. And
sharing that out. But I do have a few
follow-up questions. I was curious
about the fuses and that show
non-standard failure. Do we have
suspected cause for non-standard
failure or is it still something that
is too early to tell?
>> We're currently investigating that,
and this is why we have recommended
further testing.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then just on
the paddles, just so I'm understanding
correctly. What it sounds like is that
the paddles are designed to break as a
safety function. So if that does happen
, could be associated with some of the
other causes the paddle breaking in in
and of itself would not necessarily be
the cause of arcing, blown cover,
anything like that; right? Is that
what I'm hearing?
>> So we've looked extensively at the
paddle loss and we have data on that.
There's a loss of analysis done on the
vehicles, vehicle log and certainly
included in that analysis. A number of
factors coming together, unusual
circumstances, if you like. And it
certainly has not been ruled out, but
it's part of the analysis.
>> Okay. That is helpful for me to
know. And I just want to make sure
that one of the things that I feel
Director Ames is saying, and she can
correct me if I'm wrong later is that
potentially the insulators may be the
root cause of some of these issues, but
what I'm seeing in this presentation,
and what I'm hearing is that rather
than insulators being the cause of
these issues, it is these other whether
environmental, human, all of these
other issues could be the potential
causing factors for the insulators
being blown or some cases not being
blown rather than the insulators being
the cause; right?
>> That is correct. This appears to
be in some cases an underlying factor
and perhaps the insulators may be more
vulnerable to failure because of the
condition, but that doesn't mean they
are the root cause.
>> I think it's important for me to
understand, just because there's nine,
eight, seven separate incidents with
potentially different contributing
causes. I did like what Director Ames
said about narrowing it down per
incident to see. Because there might
not be that one single cause and
understanding what happened would be
helpful. So that is all I wanted to
clarify, just to make sure that I was
on the same page with all of you.
Because it sounded like there was a lot
of back and forth -- there was a lot of
back and forth and I just wanted to
make sure that I understand what you
were all saying.
>> Director Flores, even though you
didn't ask the question, will be a
final report in the format as well.
You saw that one incident that we laid
out that showed the insulators, we'll
do a similar diagram for every single
incident, so will you have that. Once
again, once we get to the final report
stage will include that for every
single incident
.
>> That will be great and thank you
all for outlining the next step and
moving forward so quickly. I think
that is it for me right now and look
forward to getting more information at
a later point. Thank you.
>> Thank you. President Hernandez.
Followed by Director Li.
>> Thank you. Sylvia you and I spoke
yesterday with regards to what was
going to be in discussion today. And
the one thing that I see BART has been
a system for over 50 years and the one
item that was brought
was the checks and balances and making
sure that each Director in
charge of
whether an item to make sure we're
being proactive. I know we cannot know
every incident that is going to happen.
But it's our due diligence to make
sure there's communication. And going
back and making sure that each item is
checked off. And when I say that, when
a pilot gets into the cockpit, his
responsibility is to make sure
everything is checked off before he
moves the plane forward and if
something is not correct, then
maintenance comes in. They fix the
problem, and move on or they actually
cancel the flight and so on. So what
I'm seeing from our discussion a little
bit is making sure that each Director
is responsible for checking off that
list. And I just want to make sure
it's clear that each Director for each
Department moving forward understands
that. Whether it's making sure there's
more check-offs, making sure that our
General Manager gets the last word.
Can you just clarify how we're going to
do that moving forward?
>> Well, I think it's a combination.
What Shane's direction to his Staff and
his maintenance Department. I think
there's also from a higher-level
there's -- we need to put into place a
Change Control Board that has safety,
has a General Manager, has the AGM of
Operations signing off and potentially
the OID if it's a construction project
versus a maintenance project. So I
think you know, in initial
conversations with our Chief Safety
Officer, what he talked about is a
Change Control Board basically. So I
think what we'd have to do is use maybe
our asset risk register to identify
criticality of assets which already
know what that is and I think we need
to put a set of criteria that says if
this changes, in this configuration,
you are not allowed to make that change
without signoff and BART has tons of
processes that require us to do system
access requests, or site -- what is
that? Site-specific Work Plans that
have to get into place months before we
do the work. So we can tack it onto
that process that says this person has
to sign off before we can move forward.
And I think in some of those cases
that insides to be escalated up, and
again, part of that has to be what are
you going to do at the end? How you
are going to put that back in place?
And again as Shane said, maintenance is
there first and last and there needs to
be something to trigger the signoff
through maintenance or the contractor
that says that work has been completed.
>> President Hernandez, just to add
what she is saying more directly, you
know, this accountability, and however
you want to frame it, the check-off,
the pilot, and checking that. Those
folks that you are talking about, those
"pilots" are in this room right now.
That is why Michael brought them in.
It's Mike Gibson and Derek Calhoun
and Leo Pica, Jeff Lau and Myat
San and those that are responsible for
elements in the system and that
checklist, that check off list, that is
their world. So having them here that
comment from you, it is very powerful,
because that kind of accountability is
what we need to get to what Director
Ghosh was talking about. About
improving the system, improving the
reliabilities for our riders and
couldn't agree more.
>> Thank you. I just bring that
forward because in a City, I always
revert back to the City, we tend to do
that; right? We want to make sure
that before we have something that
needs to be fixed, because it's age,
that we want to bring it forward in
enough time. So that we can beat that
time-lapse. So just wanted to make
sure that we're all on the same vision
of moving forward, and I do appreciate
the thorough report.
>> Thank you. Director Li.
>> I have really brief comments here.
So my colleagues have said so much and
to associate myself with the comments
to thank Staff and third-quarter party
consultants at Parsons for the
extensive investigation and
particularly want to associate myself
with Director Wright's comments. Look,
we have been at this conversation for
what two hours now? That is such a
tiny fraction of near 15,000 hours that
went into the investigation and no one
this Board, love you all, my
colleagues, no one on this Board are
subject-matter experts and certainly
we're not subject-matter experts on the
breadth of knowledge needed to
unravel the situations that had
happened, which is why we bring in
third-party consultants which amongst
all of your people, you all can figure
this out. We're not going to figure
this out. We're not going to just go
into your grab bag of brainstorm idea
and have you looked at this? You have.
You have done 15,000 hours of looking
at stuff and we're not going to do that
in two hours and not smart enough to do
in two hours. What is really, really
important is BART is safe for our
riders and we know that BART is safe
for our riders, because born out of our
data, you can see that in our Quarterly
Service Performance Reviews. I looked
at our latest one that you presented
back in December cover Q1, July,
August and September. Which includes a
few of the incidents that you
investigated. We have point .14
vehicles per million riders when
looking at passenger safety number
and give or take about a million rides per
week in our system. So you can see how
incredibly rare passenger safety
incidents on our trains occur. That
puts BART as one of the safety transit
system in our country and that is in
the data. That we report to the FTA
regularly. And that we present to the
public quarterly. BART is a damn safe
system. So thank you for those
efforts. With all that said, and
echoing what Director Wright said,
that's the perception of our system that
make a difference for our riders in
trusting us as a government agency, and
trusting us believing beyond just the
numbers that we're the safety system.
And I think this investigation, these
man hours, this deeper look and
ultimately what will become a final
full report is that level of
transparency we need to give
credibility to the work that you have
all done, that Parsons has done to
ensure we remain safe and we're
proactive and building in your
protocols every step of our
construction projects every step of our
State of Good Repair work that we're
doing everything right. We're being
proactive and we're preventing further
incidents from occurring. That keep
our system running. So I will end my
comments there. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Director Li. Let me ask
a few questions, or provide a few
comments before we wrap up. First off,
thank you. Honesty and transparency
are critical in government, and so you
coming to us today, and identifying
some areas where we have some gaps that
we can fix is important. That does
build our reputation in the area that
folks that we care about ridership. I
will also be clear that when BART has
an issue, it isn't just BART passengers
impacted, but it's the entire Bay Area
and traffic throughout the Bay Area is
greatly impacted when we aren't able to
provide service. So the world is much
larger than the ridership that we live
in today. So I look at this as a
learning opportunity. This is a chance
for us as an agency to identify what we
see as challenges that we can address
and understand what are some of the
challenges that we may not yet be
seeing? I so welcome this and I think
it's ultimately in the best interest of
BART and the greater Bay Area. With
that said, did we look at other
electrified railways? Are we unique in
it sense or something that other
agencies have experienced and did we
gain anything from that?
>> Yes, we have looked at other
systems, and many team members, and
SMEs and technical specialists have
direct experience working for those
other agencies not just myself, but
other Members of the Team have worked
for New York City Transit, and other
agencies. So that data point, those
data points are there. I think it's
too early to say right now, but based
on our understanding and our analysis
these circumstances appear to be quite
unique to this system.
>> Thank you. We have been told BART
is unique many times before. So
understood. As part of this sort of
data analyses, did we bring in Alstom,
the folks that take care of our trains?
The creators of our trains to give us
some SME feedback?
>> Chair, sorry about that, we have
not brought them in yet. We wanted to
do this completely independent. As far
as that review , but we do plan to
bring them in moving forward.
>> Based on what I'm hearing today, I
think it's critical that we bring in
our train manufacturer to look at are
there any contributes issues or
potential causes? So I think that
would be critical for us to do. And
kind of speaking to that issue, do we
capture any undercarriage video?
Because I think we should explore that
if we don't?
>> We don't right now. But it is one
of the recommendations from the team.
There's different reasons why we
haven't done that. But definitely
something we can talk to the Chief
Mechanical Officer.
>> All right. To me it's another data
point and another potential piece of
the puzzle to identify some of these
challenges. Lastly, I know you
mentioned rail grinding vehicles and
not necessarily being a root cause, but
could be a contributing factor. Have
we thought about -- I know at home,
with your sanding, some of your tools
have a vac built into it, so the dust is
captured as you are grinding. Is we
looked at retrofitting those as we're
grinding?
>> Directors, we have two rail grinders
that have vacuum system on them with
two collector cars. They collect as
much of the spoil and not micro dust,
but dust that it can. And then the
other thing that we're talking about,
when we're talking about metal dust is
the rear wheel interface, which is not
picked up by the grinder every night.
Because the wheels won't get newer and
we have that dilemma as well.
>> Understood. Well, maybe we need a
vacuum truck to run around the system.
With that I will conclude my feedback
and the E&O agenda items, I will turn
it back over to President Hernandez.
>> Thank you, Directors.
>> Thank you
>> Thank you. Our Item No. 8 is our
Planning, Public Affairs, Access and
Legislation item. And Chaired by Chair
Raburn.
>> We'll plough on through the
Planning, Public Affairs, Access and
Legislation and we have one item to
discuss, and it's the -- ?
>> Excuse me, can you please take out
any conversation outside of this room.
>> Continue your conversation outside,
and the one item for approval is the
goals and objectives for the Fremont
station Transit-Oriented Development
project. Each of the Directors have a
letter from the City of Fremont's
Community Development Director, or
signed by the development Director.
It's a very supportive letter. And I
want to share that I'm excited about
this project and I hope we can move
right along with getting everybody's
input into those goals and objectives
without delay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Director Raburn, we're
excited about this project as well. So
we're here to get approval today on the
goals and objectives for the Fremont
TOD. Our Staff has worked with
stakeholders in the City to take the
Board adopted TOD goals and develop
specific project objectivities. So we
have Matt Lewis, our Principal property
Vermont and Kamala Park our Principal
planner on station planning and I will
hand it to Kasheica, our Director of TOD.
>> Good afternoon, Directors. Before I
hand it over to Matt and Kamala to work
through the presentation to say why
Fremont is such a great TOD
opportunity. The station opened in the
early 70s. And for 45 years served as
a major access point into the BART
system and in 2017, when the Warms
Springs station opened, it was no
longer a huge demand for parking at the
Fremont station.
>> Can you pull the mic a little
closer?
>> Okay. So there was no longer a
huge demand for parking as there had
been in the past at Fremont statement
with the opening of the Warms Springs
station. So with close to 2,000
parking spaces with less than 30% now
being utilized, we think that the
Fremont station can be very
thoughtfully developed to create
residential housing, walkable
amenities, and stronger ridership base.
So now I will turn it over to Matt and
Kamala to work you through the details
of goals and objectives for the TOD,
which we worked very closely with our
City partners and the community to
attain these goals. Turn it over.
>> Good afternoon, Directors. Thank
you for your time and attention on
Fremont TOD goals and objectives,
reviewing the site, station access and
planning efforts to-date and dive into
the goals and the objectives and the
community engagement done so far and
proceed to next steps and a motion.
Back in 2024 the parking stations
development for the site and we have
largely confirmed the advantages that
were previously identified. For one,
the parking lots are an expansive 23
gross acres. Sizeable for a
large-scale development and positioned
for development through state and local
policy including AB 2923 and the City
of Fremont's zoning standards that
allow up to 12 stories for most of
the site. City also identified in its
most recent housing element and we
closely coordinated with City of
Fremont Planning and transportation
Staff and given an opportunity to
comment and contribute to the goals
and objectives statement. Finally, the
rider parking lots have low
utilization, which creates the
opportunity to use a portion of rider
parking lot for TOD, and avoid the
expense and complication of building a
BART rider garage to replace the lost
Park and Kamala will explain more of
that in a moment. We have conducted
several due diligence studies on the
site. The most important study done to
identify the location of the Hayward
fault. Fortunately the area was
heavily study for the Warms Springs
extension and able to utilize the study
as shown in the image to the right. In
response to the research we decided to
exclude the areas that are closest to
the fault from the developer
solicitation that we're proposing to do
this year. We also conducted market
research with real estate developers
and heard that major office and retail
developments not viable here, but high
density residential is. And several
developers suggested dividing up the
site into different phases to reduce
their risk exposure and we contacted
the nearby Hospital facilities to see
if they are interested and they are not
currently looking for additional land
for expansion. We closely studied the
station access conditions here, which I
will hand over to Kamala to explain.
>> Thank you, Matt. So Fremont
station folks get there by a variety of
modes, but the most important thing in
this chart is that driving and parking
has been reducing as a share of the
riders who get there. For example,
looking at the most current 2024 data,
40% get there without a car while
nearly 30% are dropped off and less
than 34% drive and Park. You may
already be aware that BART's 2016
station access policy set five
different station access typologies.
From urban to auto-dependent partially
based on the share of riders would
drive. This station is currently
intermodal auto reliant, but with TOD
it's expected to become balanced
intermodal as the share of riders who
drive to the station decreases. Even
without the TOD the Fremont station is
already in the balanced intermodal
share. The TOD will change access to
the station with the expectation that
less riders will drive and Park and
thankfully Fremont has being
diligently transforming their streets
to prioritize safety and accessibility
for all. Three City-led infrastructure
projects to improve walking and biking
within a mile of this Fremont station
received safe routes to BART funding.
The City of Fremont has implemented
many roadway projects citywide, like
the one around the station as part of
their Vision Zero program. Their
annual rate of traffic fatalities is
three, whereas the nation, state and
Bay Area cities range from 4-13
fatalities per 100,000 people. This
means that our riders are getting --
are getting to our stations safer, and
doesn't matter what mode of travel they
are using. The Fremont station as
Kasheica mentioned was built with 1900
space because it was end-of-line until
2017. Parking demand in the
foreseeable future will not require more
than 740 spaces. The first three rows
show how Tuesday through Thursday
parking occupancies have been trending
down since 2015 to 29% currently. The
last row shows expected ridership based
on BART's financial projections, and
associated parking demand in 2038.
This assumes that Core Capacity
Program, and VTA's BART extension to
Santa Clara are fully operation by
then. You can see that parking demand
would be at most 740 spaces, less than
half of the 1900 spaces. Now back to
Matt.
>> Thanks Kamala. On the right of the
slide an overview of the general
process of developing TOD of so right
now we're proposing to move from step
1, pre-solicitation planning to step 2,
develop solicitation and goals and
objectives is the vehicle for doing
that. As the high-level parameters of
the TOD project and will be included in
the solicitation for developer. The
goals and objectives statement is shaped
around the goals for the overall TOD
program, which were adopted by the
Board in 2020. And are listed here in
the third bullet. The objectives for
each goal is how tailoring the goals to
the particular condition and
aspirations for the Fremont TOD. It's
not operating. Something is wrong with
the clicker here -- there we go. These
next two slides have the Board adopted
goals and key objectives for Fremont
TOD. We're highlighting them, the main
ones here. And these are the three
remaining goals and their main
objectives. In addition to the
affordability goal we're proposing the
City of Fremont's inclusionary zoning
policy also applies to the TOD, which
call for a portion of the project to
have middle-income housing in some
cases as well. We put out a draft of
the objective statement for public
feedback. We held open houses at
Fremont station and survey open for
weeks, and we got a lot of great
feedback on how to design TOD and
parking and affordable levels as well
and covered in the local news. The
next few slides height the important
objective proposing of the first up to
divide the parking lots into two phases
for development and leave out a
substantial portion that is
undevelopable due to the presence of
the Hayward fault and the first phase
shown in yellow, undevelopable area is
shown in red, and the second phase is
shown in purple. First phase we're
proposing to do a developer
solicitation for this year. And it
will include eight acres and primarily
consist of housing and ground floor
retail, which is consistent with the
City's zoning. So advantages on this
phasing approach at first reserves
enough parking spaces for existing and
foreseeable demand. That means no
replacement parking garage is necessary for
the first phase to proceed in full and
second, it's responsive to developer
feedback that the site would attract
more interest if divided up, and third,
it gives us time on phase 2 to wait for
market conditions for conducive for
development. I will hand it back to
Kamalu.
>> Public feedback we received
stated concern about the BART
loss of parking for TOD phase 1
retaining 700 parking spaces on-site,
430 near Washington Hospital, where TOD
phase 2 would be located and 250 were
the Hayward earthquake fault prevents
development. There's also a 30-space
parking lot under the track near
Mallory that could be re-opened if
needed. Riders who drive may opt to
Park at Union City and Warms
Springs/South Fremont stations which
also have underutilized parking lots.
Parking demand will be revisited before
pursuing solicitation for TOD phrase 2,
along with strategies to accommodate it
by investigating options for on-site
surface podium and garage parking, and
off-site on-streets, and in private
lots where BART riders could be allowed
to pay to Park. Improving walking and
biking in and around the station area
was also a frequent comment from
community members, and that aligns with
our adopted policies. Many community
members were real excited about the
potential development. They want the
Fremont station TOD to create a "dense
intensive an active focal point for the
entire City Center."
That was articulated from the 2015
Community Plan. The current zoning of
BART land is City Center Transit
Neighborhood, this is mostly
high-density residential with some
small-scale services and retail. The
two-phased approach to development
would allow us to advance mostly
housing on the Northeast side while
keeping that West side available for
non-residential options in the future.
We refined the objectives under
complete community goals to emphasize
recreation and socializing
opportunities with the caveat that
non-residential components are
dependent on market feasibility, and
what the selected developer team
proposes. Now I will hand it back to
Matt to wrap it up.
>> Thank you Kamala. First we request
that the Board approve the proposed
goals and objectives statement and if
approved BART Staff will issue a
solicitation for developer. For
summer 2026 to return to the Board
for development partner and authority to enter
into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
with them and then BART Staff and
developer will negotiate a term sheet
and return to the Board with terms and
construction would start as early as a
year after that. Thank you for your
time and interest. We're happy to take
your questions and to proceed to the
slide with the motion.
>> Thank you, we have the best Staff.
Do we have any public comments?
>> We have one, Glen Overton. Glen.
>> Madam President, and Staff. I'm
for any housing development on BART
land. TOD, Transit-Oriented
Development is not just a fad, it's a
need. We need TOD, so we don't turn
out like Los Angeles and burn every
damn thing down. People need to live
close to their transit to have
transit-friendly and community-friendly
access.
To have a choice between leaving the
car parked, walking, accessing culture,
and their environment, providing for
their children and working and just
living life the way life should be led.
Accessible housing, transit is
optimal, thoughtful, necessary. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Glen. Any other -- no
further public speakers. The Chair
likes to speak last. I would like to
hear from Director Ames first, whose
District this project is in. Again,
our goal is to get to approval of a
motion.
>> Thank you, Director Raburn. Thank
you, Staff. You did a great job. I'm
very pleased. I went to a few Town
Hall and I do appreciate that you want
to reserve a portion of the site for
potential commercial activity in the
future and I'm all about the transit
Village, but I don't want housing and a
little retail, but jobs and housing
balance. So I did meet with a hotel
developer before COVID and they were
interested in putting a hotel there
because of all of the hospitals. It's
not just Washington Hospital, but
Kaiser and the Palo Alto Foundation is
just about a mile-and-a-half away. So
it's a great site. The County --
Alameda County library is close by and
it's a fantastic location to build
housing at a dense rate. Hopefully we
can get those standards. Fremont has a
higher standard -- what is it? 12
stories. Ours is 7 stories, and they
have 12 stories.
The intermodal standard BART placed on
the side, but received so many grants
and activated the Street. So much
improvement. They had elevated with
the sidewalk with the multimodal
corridor, where they eliminated the
right turn lane. So you have a huge
multimodal corridor where cars have
to wait at the light and turn when
it's green. Because they took out the
turn lane, it's a tremendous open area
for biking and walking and using
scooters. This multimodal corridor is
also going to the High School. The
site is a complete success. I'm
excited. I guess I just had questions
about the Hayward fault. My
understanding with the Hayward fault,
it does have a core fault and it's got
transverse cracks and you can't build
on the cracks. So I just want to make
sure that the Staff has a good
evaluation on that. Because I thought
the Building Code didn't allow you to
build on those -- it's not just a crack
itself. The Hayward fault there's like
100' buffer from the fault. Then
there's other cracks that go across the
fault. So I just want to make sure you
could follow-up on that. But
essentially, having the mixed-use
component next to the bus depot is
tremendous. The only thing I wanted to
see in addition to this is -- I hate to
say it, but vendor activation in the
station itself. A lot of people want
to hang out inside the station and I
know there's many Directors that want
to activate our stations inside, and
also outside. But inside, I know we
keep resisting. I hope we can maybe --
I don't know if that is a goal for the
TOD? But I think it should be a goal
for BART to consider ways to activate
inside the station. So I also just
after we were so excited about this
project, I did talk to the City of
Fremont and they are looking at similar
to the Berryessa station, where we
would connect the Fremont station to
the Bay Area ridge trail and the Vargas
plateau. It's not in the bike plan,
but Fremont is taking the lead on that.
So look at what happened to stimulate
the community. They are really excited
and I will move to approve these
measures. Just one more thing about
housing. I have one more comment. I
do appreciate, Matt, that you brought
up the missing middle-income housing
element, which I guess you are saying
Fremont has. So the middle-income
bracket is 80% to 120% Area Median
Income. So the City has a target, it's
a little over 10%. And a lot of
communities don't build housing. This
is really the middle-income bracket.
It doesn't get built. I hope this
project does that, because it's very
difficult to build. It just doesn't
happen in the Bay Area. It's
unfortunate. So I move to approve the
TOD goals thank you.
>> I will second.
>> Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. Director Foley.
>> Thank you, Chair Raburn. First
off, thank you for to the TOD team for
bringing this to us today. I'm glad to
hear that Director Ames supports this,
because I also support this and it's
good to know we're all on the same page
here. I did have a couple of quick
questions. Because it seemed odd you
were bringing back objectives, which I
hadn't really the past. So you are
looking for us to approve what you laid
out on slides 11, 12 and 13, is that
correct? It's not a blanket approve of
everything under the sun?
>> The EDD included in the Board
packet had an attachment with the full
list of goals and objectives.
>> Super. You will be coming back to
us in the future for an update on phase
2 when we get there, and I assume phase
1 as we get into the ENA process and
all of that good stuff? Super. Okay.
The last point, concern I will raise,
we're going to do a ground lease, how
do we protect our investment when
building so close to a fault? What I
don't want is repeat of the Coliseum
connection, where we have an act of God
or natural disaster that displaced
people for more than a year and had a
less than willing partner in making the
property something that people could --
excuse me, return to? So I just want
to know, are we looking at language,
when we start looking at agreements on
this? Where there is some sort of
protection for this agency? If the --
if -- whoever is going to operate this
piece of property is not meeting their
obligations?
>> So as it relates to the proximity
to the fault, and kind of the zone of
influence of the default, there has
been extensive studies and assessments
done already and in addition to that,
any developer developing on our sites
have to comply with Building Code for
the State, as it relates to the
proximity or building anywhere near a
fault. And to, of course, the local
Building Codes, which are more strict
than they were in the past. And
Fremont is not unique to any other part
of the Bay Area necessarily in its
proximity to the fault. I understand
that we just so happen to know where
this one is exactly, but we have
existing structures, and we will do
additional assessment. The developer
will do their own assessment to make
sure that we are mitigating and
limiting our risks.
>> I just want to make sure that we're
in a position where we're not exposed
after something occurs? That is really
what I'm most concerned about here is
that exposure in limiting that? So I
would argue that the Coliseum
connection was built to building
standards, and all of the above, but we
still had an issue and problem that we
had to resolve. I would like not to
have that in future and have some
language in any sort of agreement that
gives us an out.
>> Director Foley -- sorry I was going
to call you President Foley, sore
before I that President Hernandez.
Both I and Michael and Kasheica are
looking for opportunities to strengthen
language had a may or may not have
being in the Coliseum connection lease
agreement. They are working with Jeana
and Legal Counsel to make sure that
BART is protected and airtight, so BART
is protected and more importantly the
residents of the community are
protected. So the three of us are
tight on that, and you know, and Jeana
is with us on that concept.
>> Thank you, I appreciate the words
of support. Thank you. Tch thank you,
Director Foley. Director Flores.
>> Thank you so much for the
presentation. I agree the site is
primed for TOD development. I think
that all the work that the City has
done not only in rezoning and
identifying this in their housing
element, but also doing the Pedestrian
and bike improvements in that area make
this a perfect place. I am very happy
that the City of Fremont has being a
collaborative partner and you can see
that I think in their capacity that
they have zoned for this area. I'm
supportive of this, but just curious if
the middle-income housing program that
they're expecting, or requiring would
that be managed by the developer, by
the City, or a low-income program that
someone applies and you need income
verification and the selection process,
do you all know how that would work?
>> So as far as getting into the
details of the qualifications, or
qualifying residents, and things like
that we're not at that int we would be
able to really speak with any certainty
on how that process would go. But as
far as having the 80-120% AMI as a
goal, I think that would be something
that we would have if the solicitation.
And then we would have the developers
come back, and basically do a proposal
on how they might meet that goal.
>> So the developers would be
responsible for managing that. Okay.
Thanks.
>> Thank you very much. And Director
Ghosh.
>> I just wanted to express my support
for the project. I think I just see
the TOD at each station that we do
really expanding access for our people
who rely on BART. Fremont station used
to be my home station in the sense I
used to go from Berkeley to Fremont,
because that is where my in-laws lived
and now Warms Springs is closer to
them. So I haven't been to the
station, but it always felt like it's
in the middle of nowhere and I still
remember trying to ride my bike once
from that station to their house, and
it was a nightmare. So I think there's
great potential here to develop
housing, and almost to bring our
communities closer. When you are only
a BART ride away to visit someone who
lives at a BART TOD and it's great to
see that most of the goals that we have
throughout our TOD listed objectives
were aligned with that. It seems like
with the City. And that you all have
adjusted to make it more appropriate
for what is site-specific, and
community-specific. So I look forward
to seeing where this goes, and I hope
we can make even more of a place there
with this project. Thank you for all
the work.
>> Any other Board Members? I will
conclude then, and I have a few goals I
want to underline that our existing
policy for 35% affordable is the goal
that we would seek on building housing
at this site. Regarding recreation, of
course, there's a ginormous Park
nearby that will serve this area well.
However, for preschoolers, tots, I
think we'll need to plan for some tot
lots adjacent to the Housing. So that
it's very convenient. As well, access
to Lake Elizabeth crosses a couple of
major arterials that BART shows on our
high injury network maps that are
included in our safe trips to BART
plan. Mallory, Mission, Fremont
Boulevard, Paseo Padre, these require
countermeasures. So specifically we
want to get people safely from that
phase 1 site to both Lake Elizabeth, as
well as to the shopping in the central
Central Park area. And so within the
BART property, there is an internal
Street that connects phase 1 over to the
central toward The Paso Padre side of
the station. So that I think need to
be retained and prioritized for bike
and Pedestrian travel. There will be
increased demand to travel on that road
from motor vehicles, and don't let it
just happen, and then say oh, my gosh,
what are we going to do to protect the
bicyclists, or the pedestrians? So
that has to be an essential component
in order to get people from the new
development out, because all of our
Planning has mainly been to get people
to the station, and back home from the
station. So now we're planning with at
least two different destinations, both
the shopping. There's a rally's
nearby, but there is also Walnut square
-- or Walnut Plaza, which is a little
bit beyond rally's and another high
injury network to cross. So there's a
couple of additional goals to add in,
but I'm going to give my solid support
on this, and I look forward to seeing
the development proposals roll in.
Let's hear from the District Secretary,
would you please call the roll?
>> Yes. Certainly. Director Ames?
>> Yes.
>> Director Flores?
>> Aye.
>> Director Foley?
>> Aye.
>> Director Ghosh?
>> Yes.
>> Director Li?
>> Yes.
>> Director Raburn?
>> Yea.
>> Director Rinn?
>> Aye.
>> Vice President Wright?
>> Aye.
>> President Hernandez?
>> Aye.
>> Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you for your support everyone.
>> You're welcome. That concludes the
PPAAL Committee. Thank you, this moves
us over to Item No. 9, which is our
Board matters. Item A, any Board
Member reports at this time?
>> Yeah.
>> Director Ames.
>> Thank you. I thank Alicia and the
Staff, we have a Super Bowl web page
up and I talked to Alicia a lot about
this, because I wanted to see more
presentation on our website for the
soccer game and we got Super Bowl
coming. And I have been trying to
contact Levi Stadium with no success. I
just did it this morning, just trying
to get them to put our BART link on the
Levi's Stadium. They have even the
Bicycle Coalition. Silicon Valley
Bicycle Coalition is on the Levi's
Stadium website. I cannot figure out,
and Alicia is working on this, but we
have to get BART's link on there.
Because a lot of people in their
roadmap or their transit map doesn't
understand how BART links over to the
Stadium. Everybody lived there so
long, there's a link at Milpitas. It's
a relatively new station and to get the
word out to get Levi's Stadium to get
the BART transit icon on there, so they
can see that BART is a partner.
Caltrain is also on their website.
It's unfortunate. I know you are
trying Alicia, so keep it up. I don't
know, Bob, who can talk to the Levi's
Stadium folks? Maybe it's political.
I appreciate you doing more outreach
and I'm hoping to see our BART link on
the outside of Levi's Stadium.
>> Thank you, item B, Roll Call for
Introduction. Any Roll Call for
Introductions?
>> Can I just jump in and say, Bob,
can you talk about the role that you
play in the Bay Area Host Committee
just briefly?
>> So I'm on the Host Committee,
Directors, and the Host Committee is
the kind of the think-tank of not only
the Super Bowl and the FIFA games, but
other events that we're -- we as a
region, are chasing with the leadership
here. And so me being on the Host
Committee, and the link between -- to
all the other operators is very
critical. And I have a lot of back and
forth with Members directly with the
Host Committee with Rodd Lee staffing
the thing. So Director Ames, we're
pretty plugged in there and the
connection there to jump on VTA, and
down to the Stadium there. So we can
reinforce that. I can talk to the head
of the Host Committee, and see if
there's an opportunity there. But
also, then Capitol Corridor; right?
Comes right down, and makes that
connection there. And we had at my --
I shouldn't say my, by I just run it as
the BART GM, the 9:00 Monday morning
meeting all the GMs had the Host
Committee with MTC as well to
coordinate this stuff and BART is at
the center of conversation. Whether
it's the Communications Officer or he
just left here our Chief transportation
Officer is at the center of these
discussions and I can certainly keep
you posted on that.
>> Thank you, Bob. I have been trying
for a couple of years with the Swifties
and all the events happening at Levi's
Stadium. We really need to get our
logo on there, so people can see that
we're connected all around the bay.
Thank you so much. Hopefully you can
put pressure on them. Thank you.
>> Director Foley and Director Raburn.
>> Thank you, just a brief update on
January 8th I attended the Contra Costa
Mayors conference. January 13th, I
attended the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors reorganization event.
On the 20th, earlier this week, I made
a Role-in-the-Region presentation to
East Contra Costa Democratic club and I
want to thank Director Rinn for
covering for me last night at the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
I was attending my East Bay MUD
retirement party. Thank you.
>> That came out of nowhere --
--
[laughter ]Did he just drop he is
retiring?
[ APPLAUSE ]
If we would have none, we would have
made sure that Franklin brought some
cupcakes. Congratulations -- how many
years? How many years?
>> I was in my 33rd year of employment
with East Bay MUD. I'm vacationing out
to April Fools, which is my official day
off the books.
>> Congratulations!
>> Thank you, Jerry.
Congratulations for your years of
service, 33.
>> Director?
>> I'm amazed you are still a young
man. On January 10th, I attended Mayor
Stephen Cassidy's service and the
community came out enforce. This was a
large group. On the 12th, I usually
don't report that I attend our Advisory
Committee meetings, but I attended the
BPCRB meeting which was attended by
Cephus and Wanda Johnson who invited
people to participate in the
Happy Birthday Oscar Grant, which
will be an ongoing event. Cephus
inquired about a collaborative report
underway between the State Department
of Justice and the Bart Police
Department resulting from Senate Bill
2, which was passed in 2023. Further
information about the status of this
report is probably available from
either our Office of Inspector General,
pardon me, our Police Inspector or
Chief Franklin. That is all. Thank you
.
>> Director Li, and Director Ghosh.
>> I just want to note one thing, I
want to shout-out our General Manager,
and Chief Franklin for attending the
Mayor State of City, which I also
attended last Thursday, the 15th. It
was a very, very well-attended event.
I appreciated it. It was right in my
own neighborhood of the inner Richmond
at Rossi playground. The one thing I
will note is that Mayor Lurie did
express his commitment to supporting
public transit, particularly Muni and
BART, and I gave a little cheer for
BART. Maybe inappropriate, but hey.
So yeah, just want to thank BART for
showing up for that.
>> Director Ghosh.
>> Just briefly wanted to shout-out
the Berkeley MLK breakfast that I
attended on Monday, January 19th. It
was one of the first events I attended
after I got elected and it's always
been a great way to start the year and
be grounded in those values, especially
with the times that we're in. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. And VP Wright.
>> Thank you. I just wanted to take
the opportunity to again thank our
Staff, who made possible the incredible
event that we had at our 16th Street
Plaza in the mission on January 10th.
I think it was a really big success and
in my hopes of a preview of more
collaborations to come, with the City
and County of San Francisco, the
conversations are actively underway.
When I went, the first thing that the
vendors asked me was when can we do
this again? So we're actively in
discussion with our City partners and
hopefully, I'll have more to share
soon. Thank you.
>> We have one public speaker. Jerry
Grace. Jerry.
>> Hello everybody. Last year, two of
you guys was doing last year -- and you
know who you are. You were there once
before. This year, ADA has a meeting
again for Robert Orr. Will you please
help me say the name? The thing again?
>> The name?
>> Yes.
That is what I tried to point out. Two
of them were there once before and
others were not there before. That is
what I'm trying to say about the
meeting today after this one. Thank
you. 3:00, please join us this time,
this year 226. And I do not know who
you are. -- a lot of them do not know
who you are. Please join us at 3:00
this afternoon. We want to see you
there at our -- two of you guy were
there before, and some other people
did not. Please, please come, join us,
have fun and a good time. Thank you.
>> In this room?
>> No, across the hall.
>> Thank you. Our item B, any Roll
Call for Introductions? Not seeing
any, we do not have any in memoriam.
We'll go ahead and go to Closed
Session, which is item 10. I do need to
read that there was -- we'll now enter
into Closed Session under item 10.A of
the agenda, please note the agenda had
an error and identified as wrong court
Case No., the court -- the correct
court and Case No. in San Francisco's
Superior Court Case No.
CGC24-613504. We'll reconvene in Open
Session upon conclusion of the Closed
Session item.
[ GAVEL ]
We're back out of Closed Session and
there's nothing to report. And we'll
adjourn this meeting at 2:05.
[ GAVEL ]