Clipper Card Upgrade Could Bring Seamless Regional Travel, Or Not

Transit riders can transfer between BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans bus services at the Millbrae Transit Center, but riders must pay each transit agency’s full fare. Photo: BART

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will soon renew its contract for Clipper, the Bay Area’s “all-in-one transit card.” Transit advocates are urging MTC to use the opportunity to create a more seamless fare system, and remove barriers that could allow Clipper payments on both the region’s transit agencies and “first-and-last-mile” trip services.

Transit riders can currently use the Clipper card to pay fares on the Bay Area’s seven largest transit agencies (Muni, BART, AC Transit, VTA, Caltrain, SamTrans, Golden Gate) and the San Francisco Bay Ferry, and it’s set to include several other smaller transit agencies by 2016. While using a single card is certainly more convenient for customers whose trips take them across seemingly arbitrary transit agency service boundaries, it hasn’t made those trips faster or more affordable.

“Take the trip from U.C. Berkeley to Stanford: important destinations that are both inherently walkable places with daytime populations in the tens of thousands,” SPUR Transportation Policy Director Ratna Amin wrote in a blog post last week. “It’s logical to think they’d be linked by high-quality transit connections. But even during the morning rush hour, this trip takes nearly two hours.” It also costs $10.10, or about $400/month for a weekday commuter.

Clipper transit card reader
Clipper transit card reader. Photo: Dan Honda/San Jose Mercury News

“In other regions where transit works better, you don’t have to think about what brand of transit you’re taking or who operates it,” said Adina Levin, co-founder of Friends of Caltrain. “And you don’t pay a lot extra to take different brands.”

Even many shorter trips are either cost-prohibitive or time-prohibitive on transit. A one-way trip during rush hour between Daly City and Menlo Park, located 25 miles apart in San Mateo County, takes under an hour via BART and Caltrain, but costs $8.80. SamTrans’ ECR route is available for just $2, but takes about 2.5 hours. By car it takes just 45 minutes during rush hour, and for less than half the BART + Caltrain fare in gas money. Residents who can’t afford $17.60/day in transit fare and also can’t afford five hours of travel time drive instead for such trips, adding significantly to traffic congestion on the Bay Area’s highways.

“The Bay Area needs a regional transit fare policy… that doesn’t penalize customers who transfer between systems,” wrote Egon Terplan, SPUR’s regional planning director, as part of the urban think tank’s “Six Ideas for Saving Bay Area Transit.”

One proposal by MTC that would at least reduce the transfer penalty is a standard 50-cent fare discount that transit riders would receive when transferring between transit agencies. Although such a small discount won’t boost transit ridership, it would at least remove one barrier to regional fare integration by making discounts the default type of fare agreement between transit agencies in the Bay Area. Another MTC proposal is to enable future Clipper cards to charge passengers daily and/or monthly fare maximums. This would be similar to existing daily and monthly passes, except that riders wouldn’t have to “commit” to any minimum number of trips, or even sign up to receive a discount for heavy transit use. This concept could be expanded to apply to trips between transit agencies, thus creating creating daily and monthly regional transit passes.

While some Bay Area transit agencies already do provide discounted or even free fares for passengers who transfer from another agency, these are the exception rather than the norm, and implementing regional fares that make sense has been slow, expensive, and time-consuming.

“What we were sold on was that it was going to be easy to do fare experiments to find out what works, but it’s become one of the biggest impediments to fare integration,” said BART Board Member Tom Radulovich at an April 24 review that included discussion of the next-generation Clipper system’s “customer and operator goals and objectives.” “We need a system that’s much more robust, and much more flexible, than the one we have now.”

Transportation advocates are also urging MTC to prioritize integration of “first-and-last-mile” transit services into the future Clipper system, such as car parking, bike parking, car sharing, and bike sharing.

Currently, a total of 2,800 car parking spaces at five parking garages in San Francisco can be paid for using Clipper cards. But paying for car parking at transit stations themselves hasn’t yet been fully integrated into the Clipper system. Clipper can’t be used to pay for parking at Caltrain stations, and it can’t be used to pay for monthly parking (only daily parking) at BART stations.

Also, Clipper can’t be used for any of the newer, and expanding, first-and-last-mile transit services that help residents drive less, such as bike parking, bike sharing, and car sharing. “We’ve made a commitment to promote [the bike locker payment card] BikeLink,” said Radulovich. “It would a huge convenience to use Clipper for that — to have to carry a separate card and to load it is really an unnecessary frustration.”

Bike Lockers at Presidio Transit Center in San Francisco
Pay-by-the-hour electronic bicycle lockers, such as these at the Presidio Transit Center in San Francisco, require a separate “BikeLink” transit card. Photo: The Presidio Trust

MTC agrees that making it easier for customers to use these services is important, but expanding Clipper so that it can be used on more transit agencies is the first priority. Last month, MTC awarded a $7.5 million contract to Cubic Transportation Systems to expand Clipper to over a dozen additional small Bay Area transit agencies by 2016.

“We’re very interested in having Clipper be something that can be used for bike sharing and bike parking,” said MTC Principal Program Coordinator Carol Kuester. “We are definitely hearing a desire for the system to be able to support transit-related kinds of payments.”

But even as MTC’s plans for future Clipper card specifications are presented at the Bay Area’s various transit agency boards, some transit advocacy groups are concerned that no community meetings have been scheduled to solicit feedback directly from the transit customers who will use the system.

“To date, the MTC’s process to gather requirements for the next generation of Clipper is focused on working directly with agencies, and formal meetings with agencies’ advisory bodies,” wrot Levin on the Friends of Caltrain blog. “But the process has not included direct customer feedback from riders with surveys, focus groups, or other direct information, nor has it included engaging transit advocacy groups, bicycle groups, and other groups representing large numbers of riders.”

“How are we finding out the customers’ goals and objectives?” asked BART Board Member Rebecca Saltzman at the board meeting on April 24. “Is MTC surveying or having public forums?”

No such public meetings have been scheduled, but MTC says that’s only because they’re very early in the process of specifying the technical requirements of the future Clipper system, which won’t be finalized until the end of 2015 at the earliest. “Yes, we’ll do focus groups at some point to ask riders about their expectations,” said MTC’s Kuester. “We will not be missing the boat on this.”

Transit advocates want to make sure that point isn’t after the goals and objectives of the next-generation Clipper system have already been decided, and are now gathering signatures on a Better Clipper petition to help demonstrate public support and gather public input.

  • loopyduck

    You’ve hit upon the problem there: “major cities”. The Bay Area isn’t a single city, or even one major city surrounded by teeny-tiny towns and villages. Everybody wants control. If you want your BATA, all you have to do is convince all of the people running those agencies to share (or in some cases, give up) their money and power.

    Good luck with that.

  • Jeff Carter

    Twenty-seven bay area transit agencies… That means 27 administrative/management
    staffs, boards of directors, operating employees… This can add up fast to huge duplicative
    budgets. This leads us to 27 unique
    fare policies/structures, each agency wanting to have its part of the fare
    paying customers cut. Then there are 27
    unique service policies. There is little
    fare/schedule coordination among these 27 agencies. Plus there is an umbrella organization over
    all 27 agencies (MTC).

    We should ask how much does all this cost?

    How much do we spend on management of 27 agencies vs. providing
    actual transit service?

    Other major metropolitan areas have far, far fewer agencies
    where perhaps one or two (not 27) regional transit operators provides service
    to the region. Since there are one or
    two operators of transit service the fares are unified and schedules are co-coordinated.
    Typically there seems to be one or two
    agencies operating urban and suburban busses, light rail, and subway system, and
    a separate agency operating heavy rail system.

    Some see they Bay Area arrangement as advantageous because
    it gives more local control of transit service in outlying areas over the urban
    core. Example, why should a transit
    customer in Santa Rosa
    have to come to meetings in San Francisco/Oakland regarding their bus
    service? How can decisions for transit
    in Antioch be made by non-users in San Francisco? Perhaps the solution is to have operating
    divisions in the outlying areas, but that adds cost.

    The bay area also has somewhat of a me, me, me, me, syndrome,
    concern for only each individual fiefdom and not for the good of the whole; and
    the south bay suffers from a major inferiority complex.

    A huge problem is transit planning is done by non-transit
    users, so how can they make proficient decisions for transit users?

    Recent comments at a public meeting by a SamTrans/Caltrain
    official were that for a true regional pass it would have to be too expensive
    to be affordable for transit customers, otherwise transit agencies would lose
    money by having an affordable transit pass.
    Samtrans says they lost money when they were part of the BART-Plus
    program, people were not using it properly or as it was intended, and so
    Samtrans opted out of the BART-Plus program.
    BART-Plus is probably not a good example of an inter-agency pass anyway,
    it was highly favorable to BART and not the connecting agencies.

    Putting everything under MTC is not the answer given their
    track record of planning poor projects that run way over budget, among other
    things. Look, they gave us Translink, err,
    Clipper, the Bay Bridge Eastern Span, BART to SFO/Millbrae, Bart to San Jose…

  • Tanja

    MTC should look at and learn from similar places that have fully integrated fare systems. My favorite example is the ‘Ruhr area’ in Germany, comparable in population and area size with the Bay Area and also comprised of many small to large cities (Duesseldorf, Cologne, Dortmund, Bochum to just name a few). Students receive their ‘semester ticket’ as part of their enrollment package and guess what, they can ride every train, bus, subway and streetcar without ever having to tag on or off, take a transfer ticket, hope for a discount or any such things that cause transit riders in the Bay Area no end of frustration. Others can buy single fare, day, weekly and monthly passes as well, so there is some tailoring towards their needs.

  • Sll

    So if I took the F to Berkeley in the morning ($4.20), rode around AC Transit going various places all day ($5), and took the F back to San Francisco, I’d pay $13.40 instead of it capping out at $5? That’s too bad then. I probably wouldn’t mind a $10 cap though, but if I’m budgeting for a day in the East Bay I wouldn’t really want to spend more than $10 just on transit.

  • Sll

    Two or three counties pooling resources and coming to an agreement is pretty nice compared to just one county or city handling its mass transit by itself, but I can’t help but feel that the nine counties in the Bay Area could one up them all by combining and integrating their mass transit service under the auspices of a single transit district. I would go even further and propose including the Monterey Bay Area on that list (an additional three counties) just to plan for the future, but even just the nine would provide better economies of scale.

    That and cut through vast swaths of what would otherwise be political bickering between a bunch of city and county governments. Not eliminate all of it mind you, but just cutting some of it out would be a net gain.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Clipper Card Transition for Bay Area Transit is Now Official

|
MTC Commission Chair Scott Haggerty announcing the launch of the Clipper Card. Photos: Matthew Roth. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which sets the Bay Area’s regional transportation and land use policies, officially announced the transition from the Translink card to the newly branded Clipper smart card for transit trips today. The new blue card with eight […]

Overcoming the Barriers to a Seamless Bay Area Transit Experience

|
Ratna Amin is SPUR’s Transportation Policy Director. This piece originally appeared in SPUR’s The Urbanist. The Bay Area’s prosperity is threatened by fragmentation in the public transit system: Riders and decision-makers contend with more than two dozen transit operators. Inconsistent transit experiences and disjointed planning and investment make our transit system less efficient, less usable, […]

BART Board Members Criticize Clipper Transition at Meeting

|
The BART Board of Directors had a heated discussion today about most things Clipper, from the large number of EZ Rider customers who have yet to transition to the universal smart card, to the ease with which customers can scam Clipper cards on BART and other operators. Despite a more visible outreach and marketing campaign […]

Six Ideas for Saving Bay Area Transit

|
[Editor’s note: This article is re-published with permission from the transit-themed March issue of The Urbanist, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s (SPUR) monthly member magazine. The article, written by SPUR Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan, is based on a discussion paper developed by the SPUR Transportation Policy Board. Read the full paper at spur.org/tsp.] […]

Despite Cost, Clipper Card Promises Convenience

|
As the Bay Area’s larger transit agencies transition away from paper passes to the universal fare payment smart card, Clipper, transit operators and planners insist the card will lead to greater convenience and simplicity, which they hope will increase ridership and enhance the attractiveness of transit. At its simplest, in theory, a transit passenger would […]