Caltrain and BART riders use multiple agencies, seek regional funding and coordination
At board meetings in the last week, Bay Area transit agencies continue to grapple with the challenges around regional transit funding and solutions being proposed in a regional process with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, legislators, and other stakeholders. Riders are clearly expressing preferences for full funding and an improved, coordinated multi-agency system.
All the solutions being proposed need work; agency staff and board members need to make sure details make sense, are concerned about the timeline, and are considering separate backup plans for each county and/or agency.
You can make your voice heard in these debates: sign this petition to support a large regional funding measure that keeps, improves, and coordinates service around the region.
At the Caltrain board meeting on Thursday September 5th (and meetings at SamTrans and VTA last week), about two dozen riders from all three Caltrain counties gave public comments telling personal stories about how they rely on multiple agencies to get to where they and their families need to go for work, school, and play – Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, VTA, Muni, and other agencies.
Update: Another dozen or so riders from across the BART service area gave similar comments at the BART board meeting on Thursday, September 12 - riders use multiple agencies and want a regional measure delivering seamless transit.
Riders gave public comments that consistently urged agencies to work with MTC to craft solutions for a regional funding measure that would fully fund Caltrain with funds from all three counties served by the rail service, and that would maintain, improve, and coordinate a multi-agency system.
In the agency board discussions, board members at SamTrans (Wednesday) and Caltrain (Thursday) grappled with gaps in the initial solutions that had been proposed by MTC.
A smaller, $540 million 4-county option would nearly fully fund Caltrain by replacing lost fare revenue, but would leave Santa Clara County out of the measure, which SamTrans board members understandably cited as unfair. This option also steps back support for transit operations over time, while the changes to agency public funding needs are expected to be long term.
A larger $1.5 billion 9-county option provides enough funding to maintain and coordinate the region’s transit service. However, the proposal by MTC inexplicably appears to fund only half of Caltrain’s funding need.
In response, board members understandably wanted to ensure that there were backup options to fund Caltrain, and expressed worry about the region’s ability to create a regional solution in time for the 2025 legislative session.
Some board members preferred solutions where each agency held separate ballot measures, and/or each county held separate ballot measures, funding multi-county agencies with bi-directional agreements.
Prior to Measure RR, this is how Caltrain was funded, and that process led to financial crises and proposals for service cuts every several years, when one agency or another had local financial challenges and couldn’t pay, or had unresolved negotiations with partner agencies. This is an unstable system that does not enable households, cities, and employers to plan around a reliable transit system. Such a patchwork of many bi-lateral agreements would also make it nearly impossible to have well-coordinated, seamless transit.
Some SamTrans Board Members and staff also expressed concern about San Mateo County making any further contributions to BART. SamTrans representatives expressed a belief that a 2007 agreement between SamTrans and BART was intended to be permanent – but the pandemic changed many things, including public funding needs for Caltrain and for BART.
Staff noted that BART stations are located only in the Northern part of San Mateo County. However, multiple riders who live in San Mateo County, including cities south of the BART corridor, said in public comment that they rely on both Caltrain and BART (among other agencies). For reference, BART accounts for 60% of rail ridership and 40% of transit ridership in San Mateo County. If BART failed, congestion would impact the 101 and 280 highways for drivers throughout the county.
Staff also observed that a ballot measure to extend BART down the 101 corridor had failed (back in 1999), and that the extension to San Mateo County and the airport (completed in 2003) was led by San Francisco and controversial at the time in San Mateo.
Staff and board members spoke about the need for polling to test voters’ appetite for various options. It would be valuable to test the hypothesis as to whether San Mateo County voters’ opinions in 2024 are more like voters’ opinions in 1999 when they opposed extending BART down highway 101 – or, whether the perception of voters today is more like the public commenters who support Caltrain and BART, and want to continue, improve and coordinate the multi-agency transit network.
At the VTA board meeting on Thursday evening, Chair Chavez said that it’s important for Santa Clara County to support Caltrain and BART service, and that she and Mayor Mahan are participating in a subcommittee working on solutions that could work for Santa Clara County. Chavez had expressed in the past her support for fare and schedule coordination.
Update: At BART’s board meeting on September 12, the BART board discussed the regional options, along with agency-led options for 3-5 of the counties BART serves. BART’s principles include sustaining transit operations over the long term, funding to support service improvements and regional connections, and a focus on accessibility for riders who depend on transit.
Most board members want a large regional measure with long term funding to maintain and improve transit service and connections, with an agency-led measure covering 3-5 of the BART counties as a backup, and several wanted polling on revenue mechanisms in addition to sales tax. Director Li believes that voters will NOT vote for a funding measure that will result in service cuts“ and Foley wants a single regional measure to avoid ballot fatigue.
Representatives of SamTrans wrote a letter and gave public comment expressing San Mateo County’s concerns and different understanding of funding agreements between BART and SamTrans, and BART staff and board members expressed a desire to work together on data and solutions.
In the words of SamTrans General Manager April Chan in their written letter, “No one could have predicted the pandemic and its impact on public transit. BART is a critical component of our regional transportation system, and we want BART to succeed. Let’s work together to establish a common set of facts that can help us make well-informed decisions about the best path forward for a successful regional revenue measure. We welcome the opportunity to engage in conversation with BART leaders about the future of BART service in San Mateo County based on comprehensive and accurate financial information.”
The next few months will be critical, and it will continue to be important for riders to make our voices heard in the decisions.
To ensure your voice is heard in these debates, sign this petition to support a large regional funding measure that keeps, improves, and coordinates service around the region.