Updated: Speak up for an effective network manager - and not more of the status quo
This post, originally published on November 10th, has been updated following the Nov. 14 Network Management Business Case Advisory Group Meeting based on new information.
Riders who want a seamless transit system have the opportunity to speak up in support for transit governance that is truly accountable to the public, and which doesn’t repeat our region’s past failed coordination structures.
Above: Slide summarizing the proposal for the “preliminary” RNM Executive Board structure, which, in terms of composition, is nearly identical to the consensus-based Clipper Executive Board, which has been slow and ineffective in advancing transformation. A notable difference is that the Board would report to MTC.
After 11 months of study, consultants presented a ‘preliminary, near-term regional network management structure’ at the November 14th Network Management Business Case Advisory Group. The proposed decision-making structure is supposed to enable our region deliver on seamless fares, wayfinding, and service over the next couple of years while we continue to study permanent governance reform changes.
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas, the core body at the heart of the proposal appears very similar to the status quo: an Executive Board made up of transit General Managers as the primary body responsible for advancing system transformation for the next four years.
It is unclear how the proposal - which was developed following a significant rescoping of the Network Management Business Case in June at the request of transit GMs - reflects the repeated and consistent comments from riders and non-GM Advisory group members over the past three years that the Executive Board model is flawed limited, fragile, and unaccountable to riders. Riders with disabilities have been especially vocal in speaking up against the status quo of transit coordination.
On Monday, several advisory group members and dozens of members of the public expressed concern over the proposal, including:
The importance of strong and active involvement from policymakers, including MTC commissioners and key board members not currently represented on MTC, like BART and AC Transit Board members
The need to have customer/rider representatives directly participating in decision-making structure, as opposed to simply relegated to an ‘advisory’ committee
The importance of having representatives that speak for the region as a whole instead of a specific geography or transit agency
The importance of clearly defining the purview and time duration of this ‘interim network management structure’.
Why is defining an Interim Network Management Structure so important?
Fragmented governance is at the core of the Bay Area’s ineffective and poorly coordinated transit system - with 27 operators and no entity in charge, coordinating fares, service and schedules is extremely difficult, slow, and fragile. After years of advocacy from riders, the Transformation Action Plan adopted by our region’s leaders in 2021 finally acknowledged that governance of Bay Area transit doesn’t put riders first and isn’t designed to deliver a seamless system. The result was the Network Management Business Case Study - a governance study to determine what form of network management could best support a more rider-focused transit system.
While the study got off to a promising start in early 2022, by June, transit general managers succeeded in changing the study’s scope to do more analysis, and refrain from recommending a permanent network management structure - instead, just recommending a “preliminary” structure. Transformational governance options based on global best practices - including creating an empowered Network Manager or merging existing transit agencies - were removed from the study’s scope. Instead a ‘bottom-up’ network management proposal was to be developed by the consultant team. Monday’s meeting is the first time the public is getting to see what this ‘bottom-up’ - supposedly more analysis-informed - solution has yielded.
What is the proposal?
A central feature of the proposal is the identification of three distinct tiers of decision-making - a “regional visioning element” at the top, providing the overall policy direction, a “steering element” beneath it, and a “administrative/operations element” of staff focusing on execution (see diagram).
Slide from the Nov. 14th presentation summarizing the three key levels of the preliminary RNM structure.
One notable difference between the proposal and the status quo is that MTC is described as being the “Regional Visioning Element” of the network management structure that sets the strategic vision / direction and ensure outcomes for customers. This is an interesting idea, but begs the question of how involved MTC will really be in overseeing the Executive Board of general managers, considering many other responsibilities MTC must fulfill. Currently, MTC is theoretically overseeing the Network Management Business Case, yet it has been given barely any opportunity to comment on it or shape its goals.
In the proposal, an “RNM Executive Board” of transit agency GMs occupies the “Steering Element” the central decision-making role. There are concerns that, if this board functions the way that the Clipper Executive Board currently functions, there will be little opportunity for riders to participate, little interface with policymakers - and little real accountability to riders. (See Seamless’ prior blog post about the shortcomings of this approach).
One very good recommendation in the proposal is to create a “Dedicated RNM Support Staff” team that is to support RNM Executive Board and act as part of the “Administrative/Operational Element” of the structure. Such a group of dedicated staff is essential to the success of any interim - or permanent framework. The designation of the “Director of RNM Operations” would presumably be a senior level staff person whose full time job would be to advance network management, including the team of staff working on this.
What should riders be looking for in a preliminary network management structure?
Based on our research of effective decision-making and experience with past Bay Area decision-making structures, Seamless feels that the proposal’s main challenges are:
The interests of riders aren’t sufficiently represented in the governance structure. The structure has no rider representatives in formal positions of influence, either at the regional visioning element level or at the steering level. Appointed riders and impartial, qualified professionals with relevant backgrounds should be represented somewhere in this structure.
The specific composition of the “regional visioning element”, must be developed in more detail, and should include more than just MTC commissioners. Board members of the region’s largest agencies - SFMTA, BART, at AC Transit - are not present anywhere in this structure, and need to participate in some level of the initial RNM framework for it to succeed. There’s an opportunity to include BART and AC Transit board members in the MTC committee set up to oversee the “steering element” - this will help make BART and AC Transit Boards more invested and represented in the project of transformation.
The scope of this preliminary network management structure should be better defined - and limited in its time horizon. We’d recommend that the ‘regional visioning’ element and the ‘steering element’ of this proposed structure be given clear, defined roles, with the steering element more focused on implementation and the ‘regional vision element’ be focused on policymaking. The ‘regional visioning element’ should be the main body that oversees future studies on governance and legislation to create a seamless system, whereas the ‘steering element’ of general managers should be focused on implementing the policy vision set out for it by policymakers. In terms of time duration, we recommend a maximum of two years for this interim structure. Identifying a permanent, transformational network manager structure that is based on global best practices, and which doesn’t require going back to 27 transit agency boards to implement basic coordination policies - should be a priority. The permanent network manager study must include studying the consolidation of transit agencies as an option for creating a network manager - in close alignment with the next steps of the Regional Rail Study.
Take Action
This is complex stuff, but the most important thing to do is to show that riders are paying attention, that this issue matters deeply to the public, and that we must prioritize creating a network manager that enables efficient, effective, and accountable decision-making in the near term. We encourage you to email your elected representatives who sit on transit agency boards and MTC with your concerns, and urge them to support an near term network management structure that is driven by policymakers, that includes representation from riders, and which is temporary in nature to deliver on near-term initiatives while we continue to identify permanent governance reforms.