Green Caltrain

Initial analysis from MTC’s Connected Network Plan reveals the service gaps that transit users experience on the southern transbay bridges between San Mateo and Alameda Counties.

For the first time in history, the Bay Area is approaching its long-range transportation planning with an assessment of travel demand and the level of service needed to address the demand. 

Transit service over the 92 bridge between Hayward BART and Foster City/San Mateo was eliminated during the pandemic and has not been restored.  And service over the 84 Dumbarton bridge does not and has not in the past run on weekends, even though people travel over the bridge to jobs at medical centers, retail and restaurants, and to visit friends and family.

The analysis shows that the demand for transit service over the 92 and 84 bridges would be modest compared to the demand between San Francisco and Oakland over the Bay Bridge, but this modest demand is not being met with service.

Historically, the Bay Area’s plans were based on capital projects proposed by agencies and counties.  Service was an afterthought, and service areas that fall between the service agencies are liable to fall between the cracks.  This is different from the planning process used in regionals around the world that have excellent, well-coordinated service.  For example, this report based on a recent Bay Area transit trip to Switzerland shows how the Swiss planning process starts with defining service goals, and then funds operating and capital projects to address the service goals.

More detailed information about service needs and gaps, incorporating the analysis and plans done by the region’s agencies, will be brought forward for community feedback in May.  This will be an opportunity for transit riders and organizational customers to review and weigh in on where service improvements are needed.

This planning and community feedback will be particularly important since the capital and service projects approved in the region’s plans will be the leading candidates for funding in the Regional Measure being planned.   And a compelling plan for frequent, fast, reliable service will provide an attractive vision for the public to vote on the measure.

Meanwhile, there is another opportunity for support and funding for southern transbay service.  The San Mateo County Transportation Authority is conducting a strategic plan for the Measure W Regional Connections category of funding.  Since 2018 when the measure passed, has collected about $9 million per year intended for regional connections, eligible for capital or operating costs, and none of it has been spent. One logical use could be bolstering service between San Mateo and Alameda Counties. Outreach for the plan will be held between February and April. 

On January 24, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted to pursue authorizing legislation in 2024 for a regional transportation funding measure that could go on the ballot as soon as 2026, and could be used in future years. 

The proposal would authorize MTC to put a measure on the ballot with goals for transit transformation, safe streets, connectivity and climate resilience.  MTC’s proposal would defer a recommendation about how much to allocate per category, allowing for stakeholder input before a measure goes on the ballot. Also, MTC proposes to have a flexible category that can change with evolving needs; interestingly, 70% of voters preferred that the measure have flexibility rather than fully fixed expenditures.

The proposal would allow MTC to choose from among a menu of funding options. The options  include an income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, parcel tax, or a Vehicle Miles Travel Charge no sooner than 2030.  The measure could cover all 9 counties of the Bay Area, or a subset of the 9 counties. 

Given the public demand for a well-coordinated transit system, MTC’s proposal would strengthen its role in regional transportation network management, with oversight over fare integration, schedule coordination, mapping and wayfinding, and other customer-facing operating policies that would benefit from a coordinated regional approach.   Based on earlier feedback, the proposal focused on coordination and did not mention consolidation.

MTC’s proposal also includes a Travel Demand Management Provision to require large employers of 50 or more employees to provide transit benefits. MTC staff noted that more would be needed to flesh out this proposal.

If MTC places the measure on the ballot, the voter approval threshold would be two thirds. Interestingly, the MTC’s proposal would also allow the measure to be placed upon the ballot by a qualified voter initiative (such as San Francisco’s 2018 Measure C), subject to a simple majority vote. 

Topics that generated the most discussion at MTC in January were geographical distribution and funding for highway expansion.  

Some commissioners wanted to make sure that the measure would provide benefits to local voters. MTC’s proposed to defer the specifics of the distribution of spending for categories subject to stakeholder and legislative discussions.   It’s important for voters to perceive a measure as fair. And also, because important goals of the measure include funding regional services and regional coordination across county boundaries, it wouldn’t work to allocate the funding to local entities with full ability to opt out. 

The MTC decided not to vote on whether or how to allow funding from the measure to be spent on expanding highway capacity. A large set of transit and environmental advocacy groups had sent a letter opposing using funding for highway widening, while some business and labor groups supported a mix of projects including highway widening. On the day that MTC voted, staff made a recommendation that the measure should fund highway capacity increases only projects with express lanes or high-occupancy toll lanes.  But with dozens of public comments opposing highway widening, the MTC did not include language about highway widening in the motion they approved.

Senator Scott Wiener has submitted a placeholder bill, SB925 for the authorizing legislation, which is expected to be fleshed out including MTC’s recommendations.  More detailed language is expected to be public prior to the bill’s first hearing in committees in March and April.  Wiener had led efforts in 2023 to successfully secure funding from the state budget to defer the fiscal cliff facing Caltrain, BART, SFMTA, AC Transit and other agencies.  

MTC advances regional funding measure authorizing legislation

On January 24, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted to pursue authorizing legislation in 2024 for a regional transportation funding measure that could go on the ballot as soon as 2026, and could be used in future years. 

The proposal would authorize MTC to put a measure on the ballot with goals for transit transformation, safe streets, connectivity and climate resilience.  MTC’s proposal would defer a recommendation about how much to allocate per category, allowing for stakeholder input before a measure goes on the ballot. Also, MTC proposes to have a flexible category that can change with evolving needs; interestingly, 70% of voters preferred that the measure have flexibility rather than fully fixed expenditures.

The proposal would allow MTC to choose from among a menu of funding options. The options  include an income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, parcel tax, or a Vehicle Miles Travel Charge no sooner than 2030.  The measure could cover all 9 counties of the Bay Area, or a subset of the 9 counties. 

Given the public demand for a well-coordinated transit system, MTC’s proposal would strengthen its role in regional transportation network management, with oversight over fare integration, schedule coordination, mapping and wayfinding, and other customer-facing operating policies that would benefit from a coordinated regional approach.   Based on earlier feedback, the proposal focused on coordination and did not mention consolidation.

MTC’s proposal also includes a Travel Demand Management Provision to require large employers of 50 or more employees to provide transit benefits. MTC staff noted that more would be needed to flesh out this proposal.

If MTC places the measure on the ballot, the voter approval threshold would be two thirds. Interestingly, the MTC’s proposal would also allow the measure to be placed upon the ballot by a qualified voter initiative (such as San Francisco’s 2018 Measure C), subject to a simple majority vote. 

Topics that generated the most discussion at MTC in January were geographical distribution and funding for highway expansion.  

Some commissioners wanted to make sure that the measure would provide benefits to local voters. MTC’s proposed to defer the specifics of the distribution of spending for categories subject to stakeholder and legislative discussions.   It’s important for voters to perceive a measure as fair. And also, because important goals of the measure include funding regional services and regional coordination across county boundaries, it wouldn’t work to allocate the funding to local entities with full ability to opt out. 

The MTC decided not to vote on whether or how to allow funding from the measure to be spent on expanding highway capacity. A large set of transit and environmental advocacy groups had sent a letter opposing using funding for highway widening, while some business and labor groups supported a mix of projects including highway widening. On the day that MTC voted, staff made a recommendation that the measure should fund highway capacity increases only projects with express lanes or high-occupancy toll lanes.  But with dozens of public comments opposing highway widening, the MTC did not include language about highway widening in the motion they approved.

Senator Scott Wiener has submitted a placeholder bill, SB925 for the authorizing legislation, which is expected to be fleshed out including MTC’s recommendations.  More detailed language is expected to be public prior to the bill’s first hearing in committees in March and April.  Wiener had led efforts in 2023 to successfully secure funding from the state budget to defer the fiscal cliff facing Caltrain, BART, SFMTA, AC Transit and other agencies.  

Caltrain and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority are applying for federal grant funding to improve accessibility for the 22nd street station.   Built in 1907, the station can only be reached using multiple flights of stairs, making access impossible or difficult for people with disabilities, seniors, and people with strollers, luggage or bikes. 

The agencies are seeking $9 million from the Federal Transit Administration to install ramps following the recommendations of a 2021 study which was pursued at the request of Caltrain board member and San Francisco Supervisor Walton. 

San Francisco is also in early stages of studying longer-term options to potentially relocate the 22nd Street station as part of planning studies for the “Pennsylvania Avenue Extension” project to extend the tunnel to be built for the Downtown Extension/Portal connecting the Salesforce Terminal to the 4th and Townsend station. However, since the PAX project would be a follow-on to the Portal project which is slated for the 2030s, the 22nd street ramps would provide access to the station for well over a decade.

Caltrain and SFCTA pursue funding for 22nd street station accessibility

Caltrain and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority are applying for federal grant funding to improve accessibility for the 22nd street station.   Built in 1907, the station can only be reached using multiple flights of stairs, making access impossible or difficult for people with disabilities, seniors, and people with strollers, luggage or bikes. 

The agencies are seeking $9 million from the Federal Transit Administration to install ramps following the recommendations of a 2021 study which was pursued at the request of Caltrain board member and San Francisco Supervisor Walton. 

Caltrain is working on a corridor-wide crossing strategy with goals to create a systematic approach for the 41 at-grade crossings along the corridor. 

One important question for crossing projects is the locations that Caltrain will reserve for long-term potential service increases and high speed rail.

Caltrain and High Speed Rail did several studies with different recommendations, leaving plans for some projects in limbo with regard to potential designs. 

At recent meetings, Caltrain shared that California Avenue is the site needed for passing tracks in North Santa Clara County, narrowing down a set of options that considered Palo Alto and San Antonio. 

In particular, this clarification will help with the City of Palo Alto’s planning for its grade separation projects.  Millbrae, Hayward Park/Hillsdale, and Redwood City are the other locations identified for 4-track segments.

The agreement a decade ago to enable High Speed Rail service on the Peninsula Corridor and to utilize High Speed Rail funds to electrify the corridor called for a “blended system” that would primarily use two tracks, but would have four-track segments enabling fast trains to pass slower trains. 

And Caltrain’s Business Plan in 2019 set a long-term service vision calling for up to 8 Caltrain trains per hour to accommodate ridership growth. This level of service would require passing tracks for Caltrain service, even if High Speed Rail was not yet traversing the Peninsula Corridor.  The Redwood City location would serve that function for Caltrain.

However, with slow ridership recovery following the pandemic, Caltrain isn’t anticipating ridership to recover to pre-pandemic levels for over a decade, so the need for infrastructure accommodating this level of service is likely longer term. 

Caltrain’s Corridor Crossing strategy combines working with cities and developing a long term program including funding, organization, and program delivery.  Ongoing grade separation projects are continuing in the meantime as Caltrain develops the larger program. 

Caltrain is taking a look at its finances for the years following electrification and the outlook is challenging. 

Ridership growth remains slower than the rest of the region, and fare revenues have been lagging.  Farebox recovery, which was over 70% in 2019, is now in the low 20s.  Even with electrification, Caltrain is projecting a 20% ridership increase with 10% annual growth thereafter, a pace that would bring ridership to 80% of 2019 levels by 2033.  

Ridership growth is critical, and the board plans to discuss Caltrain’s ridership growth proposals at the upcoming March board meeting.

And unfortunately, the costs of operating and maintaining the electric system are projected to be high, with expenses projected to grow faster than revenues. 

Annual electric costs could be as high as $30M by the first full year of electric service, which is FY 26. 

Caltrain is projecting that maintenance costs of the electric system will increase and be greater than earlier projections.  The electric trains are brand new and will be presumably more reliable, but perhaps the parts are more expensive.

Caltrain expects that additional revenue will be needed as soon as FY27. The staff report forecasts that over the next ten years, Caltrain’s cumulative operating deficit could eclipse $575M.

In the Caltrain board discussion on February 1, board members discussed opportunities to control costs, including crewing practices for greater efficiency, and managing electricity costs. A discussion of electricity policy was deferred to the March board meeting.

Considering the fiscal cliff facing Caltrain, BART, SFMTA, AC Transit and other agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and agencies are working together on a regional funding measure that could go to the ballot as soon as 2026.  Authorizing legislation for the regional measure is being led by Senator Scott Wiener, who was instrumental in leading efforts to bring in funding from the state last year which deferred the fiscal cliff. 

At Caltrain’s board finance committee meeting in January, Caltrain’s financial consultants suggested a backup plan for local revenue including a Caltrain-only measure.  

While having a backup plan is prudent, the prospect of a Caltrain-only measure has a significant risk. Imagine a ballot year when San Francisco voters are asked whether they wish to separately financially support SFMTA, BART, or Caltrain on the same ballot.  That choice would risk all of those ballot measures.   And Caltrain, which serves a relatively small slice of San Francisco, may have the greatest risk.    

Asking Caltrain’s county partners for operating funding – a practice that was ended with the passage of Measure RR, also seems challenging because of the financial problems faced by SFMTA.  Unlike SamTrans and VTA, with revenues depending mostly on local sales tax, SFMTA’s budget depends heavily on revenues from parking and from the City of San Francisco’s budget, which face major challenges with the slow recovery of San Francisco’s economy from the pandemic.

Also, while the state budget is challenging in 2024, there may also be additional opportunities for state operating in the future, based on recommendations of a state task force that was commissioned by last year’s budget bill. 

At the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in December, at the Legislation Committee on December 8 and the full Commission on December 20, Commissioners discussed proposed policies to increase voter confidence and improve agency accountability in the context of a regional transportation funding measure.  MTC is looking to sponsor legislation in 2024 for a ballot measure in 2026 (or later).

In his introduction to the Commission, Executive Director Andrew Fremier noted that  “everything is on the table in this discussion, in order to improve the transit system, including strengthening the role of the regional network management efforts, as well as potentially looking at the governance structures of some of the operations that transit operators do today.”

Staff recommended that the authorizing legislation strengthen MTC’s role in a transit network management, in order to accelerate the implementation of the region’s “Transformation Action Plan” initiatives for integrated fares, schedules and other system coordination to improve rider experience.  

In addition, MTC staff asked for Commissioner comments about potential consolidations of agencies and/or functions.  MTC staff did not make a recommendation on the subject of consolidation, and asked Commissioners for guidance.

Commissioners support coordination over consolidation

Overall, commissioners were strongly supportive of coordination over and above consolidation.  For example, Commissioner Chavez emphasized the desired outcomes of a well-coordinated system. “We want coordinated schedules, we want coordinated fares. If we focus on outcomes, the structures will follow.”  Commissioners including Spering, Dutra Vernaci, Papan, Fleming and others favored coordination over consolidation. 

Multiple comments from elected officials and stakeholders on the Caltrain corridor favored improving coordination of rail and transit service, but expressed opposition to the concept included in MTC’s poll of “merging BART and Caltrain into one integrated rail system.”

Voters demand an accountable and well-coordinated system

MTC’s poll results show that voters demand an accountable and well-coordinated system. When asked about the types of provisions to associate with a regional measure, a whopping 80 percent of voters believe “requiring oversight and accountability to ensure effective and efficient management of public transit” should be a priority. Bay Area voters continue to strongly support “creating a seamless Bay Area transit network with coordinated fares, routes, schedules and signage” with 73 percent of all voters finding this important, including 83 percent of weekly transit riders.  A substantial majority also favor establishing “one regional agency for the Bay Area responsible for setting transit fares, coordinating different service schedules and creating consistent transit maps and signage” at 61 percent of all voters and 71 percent of weekly transit riders. 

A majority of voters also supported poll options to “combine 21 bus operators into one operator per county” (65%) and to “merge BART and Caltrain into one integrated rail system.” (55%).

A framework approach to authorizing legislation

MTC is proposing to take a framework approach with the legislation, similar to the 2019 legislation that authorized the upcoming 2024 affordable housing bond. This approach includes a set of purposes, a set of potential funding mechanisms, and a set of broad expenditure buckets.  MTC is considering multiple funding options including a sales tax, payroll tax, and income tax; the decision would be made closer to the time that a measure would be placed on the ballot.

Using broad categories is similar to the approach taken with recent county-based measures such as San Mateo County Measure W, and is different from the historical approach taken with regional bridge toll measures, which contained a detailed, itemized list of projects that is difficult to change.  MTC’s recent poll showed that 70% of voters prefer this broader approach “Requiring the transportation plan has clear goals, along with the flexibility to adjust as transportation needs change.

General support and next steps

Overall, Commissioners supported moving forward with the authorizing legislation, even though the polling is not currently strong enough to surpass the two-thirds threshold. The measure would go on the ballot several years in the future, no sooner than 2026.   Commissioners talked about the need to make improvements sooner, to increase voter confidence.

The MTC expects to vote on its recommendation for the authorizing legislation on January 24, following a discussion of the recommendation at the legislation committee on January 12.  Information about the recommendations will be posted at MTC’s agenda portal here.