Transit interdependence in San Mateo County

  • Over 40% of the trips taken by employees at the City of Menlo Park, participating in the BayPass all agency transit pass pilot program, are on agencies other than SamTrans and Caltrain (source: MTC).   

  • Among residents of affordable housing in San Mateo County who use the Bay Pass, about a third of their trips are on agencies other than SamTrans (source: MTC).

  • Nearly a third of Caltrain riders at Millbrae transfer to and from BART (sources: Caltrain and BART). 

  • Muni ridership from San Mateo County - about 10,000 trips per day -  is about the same as the ridership on the El Camino Real route - the highest ridership route in San Mateo County (sources: SFMTA and SamTrans).

  • BART accounts for about two thirds of rail trips serving San Mateo County (source: MTC).


At the boards of SamTrans and Caltrain over the last few months, public commenters have shared stories about their use of multiple agencies to get to where they need to go-  on Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, BART, Muni, and others.

Missing information at the SamTrans board

By contrast, at the SamTrans board meeting on October 9, some board members expressed lack of knowledge and some skepticism about the value of transit service coordination initiatives proposed to be funded by a regional transit funding measure, and lack of information about the value of service provided to San Mateo County by agencies serving the county in addition to SamTrans and Caltrain.

The regional transit funding measure options include funding for initiatives in the regional Transit Transformation Action Plan, including fare integration initiatives that are increasing transit ridership, as well as initiatives for service coordination, wayfinding signage to improve ease of use, paratransit coordination, and more. 

Some board members focused on SamTrans’ historical legal obligation for BART funding. This was set in 2007, over a decade before the pandemic that upended the funding model for BART and for Caltrain. 

SamTrans General Manager April Chan did express some openness to funding for BART service - wanting to make sure that the formula would be fair considering the distinctive financial arrangements between SamTrans and BART.

Better accountability and better communication about interdependence

Several SamTrans board members wanted to see greater accountability in exchange for contributing to BART service in San Mateo County - which they defined as representation on the BART board.   While the 1962 state law on the books set punitive terms for San Mateo County to rejoin the BART board, this could be changed with another state law that could accompany regional funding authorizing legislation.

Staff and board members wanted to see greater clarity and accountability for the funding in the “Transit Transformation” category.  This is a good idea since the Transit Transformation plan includes “win win” investments in fare integration and other coordination where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; multi-county improvements like bus service gaps on 92 and 84/Dumbarton that are otherwise hard to fund; and locally desired investments like wayfinding sign upgrades and El Camino transit priority.  There should be clear communication about what is covered by the category and how the decisions are made.

Also - the region needs MUCH better communication about the interdependence of our transit system, and riders’ needs for service across multiple agencies and across county borders.   Right now, it takes an inordinate amount of work to patch together the data that shows what transit riders know and share from their daily experience - that many riders use multiple agencies, that people’s lives benefit and ridership increases when service coordination improves.   

Also, members of individual transit boards do not have the information to visualize how much traffic congestion would likely increase, and how much mobility for transit-dependent people would decrease if counties take a fragmented approach to funding transit instead of working together to make sure the system continues to run. 

The region’s network management initiative has a goal to work on and improve communications about the region’s transit system as a system, rather than the current piecemeal picture that is available agency by agency. These questions reveal critical opportunities to fill the information gaps in order to help transit leaders and the public support the region’s interdependent transit system.

Adina Levin