State Transit Transformation Task Force recommends transit priority, discusses workforce development and funding reform

At its recent August meeting, the statewide transit transformation task force recommended transit priority policies and funding, and discussed opportunities for workforce development and reforming a major funding program.

The Task Force, composed of representatives of transit and regional planning agencies, business, labor, advocates and academics voted to advance a set of recommendations.

We were heartened to see the strong support and hear many public comments in support of transit priority and other recommendations.

However, the concerns of members including representatives of a major business organization and highway lobby group opposed or abstained on various items, foreshadowing challenges in getting strong recommendations implemented and the importance of building support.

Continued attention from riders and advocates will be needed to support good recommendations and to ensure that recommendations are implemented.

Transit priority projects increase transit speed and ridership

At its earlier June meeting, the Task Force heard case studies of transit priority projects that sped up service and increased ridership, countering a trend in the state and around the country with slower bus speeds correlated with decreasing ridership.

The San Francisco Muni system accelerated major transit priority projects during the pandemic, which accelerated ridership recovery.

Transit priority recommendations, refinements, and concerns

The Task Force reviewed several families of recommendations to

Standardize, support, and scale transit priority infrastructure
Expedite delivery of transit-supportive infrastructure
Coordinate and collaborate to deliver infrastructure across jurisdictions
Establish flexibility with state funding sources

Task Force members overall supported the recommendations with refinements.

Ian Griffiths, Seamless co-founder and board member, now serving on the Task Force as an individual, added a provision to set performance standards for transit priority statewide. This is a very good idea, although the standards will need to be tuned for different types of roadways; an arterial in dense San Francisco will have a different target speed than a limited access highway.

Laura Tolkoff of SPUR and other task force members wanted to see greater clarity about who would be responsible for what, in order to sharpen recommendations to be implementable; and task force members wanted to include all levels of government that have responsibilities for roadways, including state, county, and local jurisdictions.

However, a few members expressed concerns.

A prominent business leader pushed back at the concept of prioritizing transit. In public comment, Bart Reed of the LA-based Transit Coalition nonprofit had observed that LA light rail lines would go 10 minutes faster if they didn't have to stop at red lights. Instead, a train carrying 300 people needs to wait at a light for 10 cars carrying 10 people.

But Task Force member Jim Wunderman of Bay Area Council equated the annoyance of people on transit with drivers waiting for lights, and noted that more people in California drive than take transit. Wunderman wants to see funding for transit, but does not support shifting roadway space or prioritizing transit vehicles.

Overall, task force members expressed interest in new funding for transit. However, a few voices pushed back about using existing roadway funding for transit priority projects, even though buses and trains carry many more people in the same amount of space than cars so transit priority investments have the powerful potential to move more people efficiently.

Wunderman and Mark Watts of Transportation California, a lobby group for the highway industry, pushed back against recommendations to use existing sources of funds. One such recommendation was to “assist with funding transit signal priority and other transit amenities on a state-owned facility using SHOPP dollars.” (funds from the State Highway Operation and Protection Program.) Another recommendation that received pushback from the business and highway advocates was to “establish flexibility with State funding sources.”

Watts also objected to the proposal to create a state “Tiger Team” to assist with the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit / Bus Only lanes, particularly for smaller agencies and jurisdictions that do not have the resources to manage such projects. Watts was concerned that the state did not have enough money to do this, even though providing a center of expertise could deliver projects more cost-effectively. The highway lobbyist also objected to establishing a by-right permitting mechanism for transit infrastructure, raising concerns about liability.

Given the suggestions and debate, the recommendations will be brought back to the committee for a final vote.

Workforce development and TDA reform

The Task Force also discussed two other important topics that will be the subject of future recommendations from the body.

The Task Force discussed many recommendations to improve workforce recruitment, retention, and development. Transit agencies are having challenges providing reliable service, due to high vacancy rates, turnover, and retirements (slides 60-62).

According to Laurel Paget-Seekins of Public Advocates who serves on the Task Force, there are several areas in particular where the state can be helpful in addressing these issues. One of the bottlenecks facing agencies is the slow process for new drivers to qualify for commercial drivers licenses through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Agency representatives recommended policies making it easier for agencies to manage commercial license testing in-house, to enable smaller agencies to share testing resources, as well as to manage and share vehicle simulation systems for training drivers. Agencies also would like to see more to train workers on how to maintain Zero Emissions Vehicles, as transit heads toward its deadlines for a zero emissions bus fleet. Relatedly, agency representatives wanted to see workforce training for utility workers who need to support the charging infrastructure for ZEV buses, and for electric bus manufacturing. The whole supply chain for zero emissions buses needs workforce development in order to be able to make the transition!

Last but not least, the Task Force discussed opportunities to reform the Transportation Development Act, a major source of state funding. The 1971 law uses farebox recovery as a metric, which is widely seen as counter-productive, since it can encourage increasing fares resulting in decreased ridership, or workarounds that don’t incent desired performance. The technical working group suggested alternative metrics that focus on ridership, such as unlinked passenger trips or riders per vehicle revenue hour.

Task Force members also discussed reforms to the TDA “unmet needs” process, whereby agencies can declare that there are no unmet needs for transit and re-use funding for roadways. Task force members asked for greater transparency and standards for the process of diverting TDA funds away from transit.