Brian Stokle's map envisions how the Bay Area region could possibly be connected by future transit projects -- some planned, some only envisioned -- including high-speed rail, BART extensions, and BRT lines. Image via The Atlantic Cities

Imagine the freedom of being able to hop on a nearby train or bus to reach virtually any place in the Bay Area (and beyond) on an integrated network of reliable transit.

That’s the vision cartographer Brian Stokle sought to lay out in a map featured in the latest issue of SPUR‘s monthly magazine, The Urbanist. In a recent article in The Atlantic Cities, Urbanist editor Allison Arieff says that the map, along with another map of existing regional transit that Stokle created, “have generated a lot of conversation (and some controversy) — which is exactly what they were meant to do”:

The majority of the projects, routes, and modes shown in Stokle’s proposed “Future” map (or some might argue, “Utopian”) reflect current Bay Area planning. However in some cases, the mode or route has been changed. In other instances, some new routes have been suggested. For example, BART to Livermore and Dumbarton Rail are two projects that are not included in this map. Instead, access to Livermore from BART is provided by bus rapid transit, and the Dumbarton corridor is served by rapid bus service. New projects that are not currently part of planning, or are in their early phases include projects like the Oakland Emeryville streetcar down Broadway, Capitol Corridor crossing at Vallejo, and 101 Rapid in the Peninsula.

Some ideas are old, some more novel. In San Francisco, the controversial Central Subway (now under construction) is shown extending all the way to Lombard and Van Ness to meet the coming BRT line, which is also extended to connect the Transbay Terminal to Marin County via the Golden Gate Bridge (where a BART line was fought off in the 60′s).

What would it take to bring a comprehensive vision like this into reality, and which projects could be feasibly built? Regional planners are currently figuring that out as they develop the Bay Area’s 25-year Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. Next month, staff from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s transportation financing agency, will present a list of the transit projects they determine to be the most beneficial and cost-effective to build in the coming years. Stay tuned to Streetsblog for more on that.

In the meantime, check out Stokle’s map of the existing regional transit network — one of SPUR’s ideas for saving transit – after the break.

Stokle's regional map of existing transit systems. Image via The Atlantic Cities

For some more wonky urban planning treats, head over to Stokle’s blog Urban Life Signs to check out his other creations, like illustrations of Valencia Street’s various incarnations over the past 129 years.

Photo: Anomalous_A/Flickr

Improving transit by changing financing, fares, speeds, metrics, territory and maps.

[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.]

Every day, Bay Area residents and visitors take more than 1.4 million trips on one of 27 different public transit operators. But for more than a decade, the costs to operate these transit systems have been increasing far faster than any improvements in the service. Unless we make changes now, the system will not be sustainable in the future.

Regionwide, transit carries one in ten people to work. It costs more than $2.2 billion to run these 27 transit systems each year. More than $700 million comes from fares and $1.5 billion is a direct subsidy from a hodgepodge of sources (sales taxes, federal funds, state gas tax revenues). By looking out to 2035, these systems will face a combined $17 billion capital deficit and an $8 billion operating deficit.

In recent years, the costs of running these transit systems have increased far faster than inflation, even as ridership on some bus systems has declined. About 14,000 people work full time for the region’s public transit systems. Wages and fringe benefits account for more than three-quarters of the operating and maintenance costs of transit, and the cost of fringe benefits in particular is rising fast. At the same time, budget shortfalls, unpredictable revenues and service cuts are degrading the quality of public transportation. Transit systems face competition from an underpriced alternative — driving — and often operate in low-density and auto-oriented environments that are not conducive to growing ridership.

Unless there is some change to costs and revenues, with corresponding improvements in service, the viability of transit in the Bay Area is at risk. Recognizing this looming crisis, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional agency that funds transportation, launched the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP).

At its most basic level, the goal of the TSP is to highlight the challenges facing Bay Area transit and propose solutions. The fixes would include controlling the rapidly rising cost of running the Bay Area’s buses and trains as well as restructuring the types of service offered. In short, the Bay Area cannot remain economically competitive, nor meet its goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, without a transit system that does a better job of getting people where they need to go in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Much of our new investment in transit is quite simply not resulting in better service. This has to change.

SPUR interprets the key findings of the TSP report and offers six suggestions for how to save our transit system.

What Does the Transit Sustainability Project Tell Us About Bay Area Transit?

The TSP made four important findings about cost and service delivery of Bay Area transit.

• Finding 1: Costs are increasing faster than inflation

While inflation increased by 39% from 1996 to 2010, unit costs (the cost to operate a transit vehicle for one hour) grew by more than double that for Muni, SamTrans, Golden Gate and AC Transit and faster than inflation for all other major transit operators except Caltrain.

Unit costs — what it costs to operate a bus or train for one hour — are increasing at almost twice the rate of inflation for most operators (See Fig. 1). In the 14-year period from 1996 to 2010, Muni’s diesel bus unit costs increased from $92 to about $170 (an 86 percent increase). Over that time period, Muni’s trolley costs increased from $73 to $155 (a 111 percent increase). By way of comparison, the consumer price index (CPI)increased only 39 percent during this period. Among Bay Area transit operators, only Caltrain’s unit costs were lower (20 percent). Almost all of these unit cost increases are attributable to ineffective management. Among the most striking causes of cost increase are soaring pension and retirement costs, increases in health care premiums, and work rules that negatively affect productivity but do little to improve the working environment.

If costs had grown in line with inflation, Muni would now have an extra $156 million per year, AC Transit $86 million and SamTrans $30 million. These savings equate to as much as one-fifth of the entire operating budget. There is no way to maintain a viable regional transit system without greater control of this cost inflation.

• Finding 2: Increases in productivity are not sufficient to match cost increases

This chart reflects the overall trend that ridership and service are not keeping pace with costs.

Increases in unit cost are not compensated by corresponding increases in productivity (measured in total passengers, passengers per hour or passengers per mile). In fact, in many cases — passengers per hour, for example — productivity has declined. The productivity trends also reflect real and difficult decisions facing agencies. For several agencies, the rise in costs and decline in ridership reflect policy decisions to continue very slow service in neighborhoods and put little priority on suburban arterials. Overall, this results in slower services carrying fewer people per hour of service.

• Finding 3: Transit speeds are declining, which further exacerbates cost and productivity issues

As the cost to provide an hour of service has increased, the number of miles that hour can deliver (and the number of trips a bus can make in a day) has declined. Traffic congestion results in either service decreases or more costly service.

Among regional operators, Muni averages 8 miles per hour (8.6 for diesel buses and 6.6 for trolley coaches), AC Transit 10 miles per hour, SamTrans 12 and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 14. Over the last 15 years, speeds have dropped about seven percent. If the Muni trolley coach system’s average speed increased by just one mile per hour, Muni would save about $19 million dollars annually without any service decrease, just by making the buses go faster.

Operating buses and light rail in mixed traffic means that traffic increases and congestion have very real impacts on transit speeds. And slower service means less service or significant increases in costs to maintain the same service.

If an entire bus route normally takes 40 minutes and slows to 44 minutes, it means a single operator can only make 10 one-way trips a day instead of 11. So in order to maintain the same level of service, the agency must put additional buses on the road, which increases costs. It will be difficult to either increase service or hold operating costs steady if transit speeds continue to slow.

• Finding 4: There is no single factor causing these inefficiencies in transit operations

Many parties are responsible for the inefficiency of local transit operations. Transit agencies have not done enough to control the rise in unit costs. Recent contract negotiations at AC Transit (and to a lesser extent Muni) reflect partial savings. But the agencies argue they are not likely to achieve such savings in the near term. Cities too often harm transit by not giving sufficient dedicated space in the streets for buses to operate efficiently. Finally, funding agencies select poor transit investments, which also harms transit efficiencies over time.

Six Ways to Fix Bay Area Transit

Having taken on a study of the issues with the TSP, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission should now take ownership over implementing many of the good ideas to come out of the process. The following suggestions show how to fix transit by improving funding, speeds, fares, competition, information and maps.

• 1. Change the funding of transit operations from guaranteed revenue to incentive pay for more riders

Transit operations should be funded in ways that create an incentive for adding riders, as well as for making the most cost-effective improvements. For example, if the MTC offered to pay transit operators a $1 incentive (or bounty) per new rider, an agency that increased ridership by 1 million trips in a year would get an additional $1 million from the MTC. This would encourage transit operators to consider the immediate impact on ridership when allocating service.

• 2. Establish a regional fare policy that does not penalize customers who transfer between systems

By shifting from a guaranteed funding stream to a bounty paid by the MTC, operators will have a direct financial incentive to increase ridership. Growing ridership is one of the key goals for improving Bay Area transit.

When passengers transfer between BART or Caltrain and a local bus, they almost always pay two fares (there are a few exceptions, such as free transfers from Caltrain to Muni). In general, bus systems have little financial incentive to coordinate schedules with train systems. And the rail systems have no requirement to help pay for the local bus systems, even though they are getting additional riders and fares from these bus systems. This doesn’t make sense. The Bay Area needs a regional fare policy. This is complicated but certainly possible to implement with the Clipper Card as it is rolled out to all agencies. One approach would be for regional rail agencies like BART and Caltrain to pay a bounty to the local operators who deliver passengers to their systems. For example, if a passenger takes a local bus from Martinez to the Concord BART station, BART should share some of the paid fare with County Connection, the local operator. The end result could be better service to passengers, because the local agencies will benefit if they do the right thing — like coordinate schedules, adopt reasonable transfer tariffs and extend their hours of service.

• 3. Establish a new regional capital investment program that invests in speed improvements on key transit corridors

Improving transit speed and service requires investments in things like dedicated lanes for buses, signal priority and other operational improvements. When streets are designed for auto speeds, transit suffers and costs go up. MTC is already proposing a new $30 million pilot program for prioritizing transit on existing city streets to speed service. This annual program is a good start and should be expanded.

• 4. Create a tenured, independent regional transit analysis office to collect and distribute objective information and performance metrics

Just as we have a legislative analyst in Sacramento and San Francisco, we need an independent transit analysis office to both improve the public’s comprehension of the challenges facing transit systems and provide transit operators with clearer information on how and where their particular system should improve. There is already a lot of transit information out there. But there is no office with tenure and structural improving Bay Area transit.

• 5. Allow transit operators to pick up and drop off passengers within each others’ service territories

Today, transit bus operators all have distinct service territories. These territories are monopolies to the extent that one operator cannot pick up or drop off passengers in a territory controlled by another. Operators should be able to pick up and drop off passengers in each other’s service territories. (This would, however, require changes to state law.)

• 6. Produce a single transit map for the Bay Area and move toward common branding

While merging many of the Bay Area’s transit systems is impractical and not likely to achieve significant cost savings, making the entire region feel more like a single system could achieve many of the same results. The Clipper card is one step in the right direction. Creating a single transit map for the region would be another. A further step would be to move toward common marketing and branding. This approach has been taken in Melbourne, Australia, where there are numerous transit operators but the public face of transit is a single brand: Metlink.

What’s Next for Transit?

Bay Area transit systems, while operated separately, are owned by the same shareholders: the people. That simple fact should make improving transit for its owners (i.e., its customers) a top priority. To get the Bay Area’s $1.5 billion in annual transit system investments to produce better results requires much more transparency and direct and accountable financial incentives. These are not revolutionary concepts — in fact, they are the basis of all democratic systems. The system will not get better on its own. It will start to unravel unless we make needed changes. A better and sustainable transit system for the region will make a better Bay Area.

Photo: SP8254/Flickr

The board has also reportedly approved a fare increase proposal which the Mercury News detailed earlier this week:

The new proposal recommends just a 25-cent increase for a one-way ticket, no matter how far the route, and a 50-cent increase for the one-day pass.

But if at least half of the ticket buyers don’t switch to Clipper cards by March 1, 2013, staff is suggesting that the board reconsider the original proposal.

Meanwhile, staff has backed off a plan to eliminate the popular 15 percent discount pass for Clipper riders who take the train eight times within a 60-day period. Most of the complaints Caltrain received after announcing the fare increase proposal on Jan. 17 centered on elimination of the eight-ride ticket. Staff now is recommending that the pass has to be used within 30 days, at a discount of only 7.5 percent.

The fare increase is set to take effect July 1.

SF Bike Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum (left) stands with transportation officials at Warm Planet's grand opening in January 2008. Photo: SFBC/Flickr

“Caltrain needs to provide interim funding for uninterrupted service of bike parking at Fourth and King,” said Shirley Johnson, vice chair of the Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee and head of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Bikes ONBoard Project. “To expect Warm Planet to stay open without paying for it, that’s just not possible.”

When the bike shop opened in January 2008, it had room to provide attended parking for up to 100 bikes. But over the years, demand has grown, and managers have sacrificed more and more retail space to accommodate parking and avoid “bumping” bike commuters the way Caltrain often does.

Today, Warm Planet parks up to 170 bikes per day, all for free. But the grant the shop had originally relied on ended a year and a half ago, and without a lift from agencies like Caltrain — the transit system whose customers it serves — the shop can’t sustain itself much longer.

“It’s been difficult, but I’ve been making a go of it,” said Warm Planet’s owner and president, who goes by the single name Kash. “This facility doesn’t exist so I can run a bike shop. This facility exists so that people who want to get on Caltrain can park their bikes.”

Kash has sought out other sponsors but says it’s difficult to attract support, since Warm Planet is a for-profit business despite the bike parking services it provides for a public transit agency. Advocates have been pushing Caltrain to find interim funds to keep the shop going, and though staff is negotiating one, a proposal has yet to be put on the table.

“We are very pleased to have a bike parking facility there,” said Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn. “We know how important it is, and we have no intention of closing it.”

The original three-year grant included $36,000 from the SFMTA, the SF County Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, as a well as $300,000 in federal funding. However, there are no plans to renew it.

In September 2009, Caltrain issued a request for proposals (RFP) to give other prospective competitors a shot at the space, but it was canceled in October 2010, because “during the process, the companies that applied all seemed to think that there would need to be a subsidy,” said Dunn. “The RFP didn’t include that, so we are taking that into consideration right now.”

Although Caltrain is developing a new RFP that would include funding support, it could take 12 to 18 months before Warm Planet gets it, assuming it is selected to continue. Kash doesn’t expect the shop to last that long.

Johnson said issuing the RFP in the first place was unnecessary “when they already have a very successful operator,” especially with Caltrain’s ongoing financial problems. “It seems strange to take that expense and the risk of a new operator there. Why not just extend the contract with Warm Planet?”

Since the shop opened, “it has changed people’s commute,” she said. “It’s a win-win-win for everybody. Caltrain gets more customers, we get cars off the road, there’s not as much congestion, there’s not as much pollution, and people are happier on their commute.”

While Caltrain has long subsidized car parking at its stations at below-market rates, Johnson pointed out that bike parking provides a sustainable solution particularly well-suited for a linear transit system like Caltrain. Walking or taking other transit to and from the stations along the Peninsula can be too difficult and time-consuming for many.

“The bicycle solves that problem on both ends,” she said. “There are some people who can walk on the other end, so great — let them park at Warm Planet.”

Rose Garrett, a Peninsula commuter who lives in the lower Haight, started biking to Caltrain and parking at Warm Planet after two frustrating years riding the N-Judah.

“The situation became so out of hand, (crowded trains, unreliable service) that I missed my train to my Redwood City office on many occasions, causing me to miss hours of work,” she wrote in an email to Caltrain, along with dozens of others urging the agency to provide support for the shop [PDF]. “Warm Planet’s service has allowed me to to park my bike every day and continue my commute without aggravation. My good mood lasts me all morning, whereas in my Muni-riding days, my bad mood often persisted all week.”

In addition to meeting the current need, Caltrain will need to plan for a much larger facility if it is to accommodate the growing demand for bike parking in the coming years, said Kash.

“There’s no plausible future in San Francisco that doesn’t include more bicycles, so we should get ahead of the curve.”

The next meeting of the Caltrain Board of Directors is on Thursday, February 2 at 10 a.m., in the Edward J. Bacciocco Auditorium, located on the second floor at SamTrans Administrative Offices, 1250 San Carlos Ave. in San Carlos. Supporters can voice public comment there or send an email to board@caltrain.com.

Bicyclists have to contend with a mess of taxis, delivery trucks and other vehicles obstructing the bike lane on Townsend Street near the entrance to the Caltrain station, to the right. This is why some ride on the sidewalk. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

San Francisco police returned to the Caltrain station at 4th, King and Townsend streets this morning to warn bike commuters not to ride on the sidewalk one day after a sting that resulted in a number of citations for people on bikes. Bike advocates complained, however, that Caltrain has known for years the station presents a challenge to bicyclists, and said the agency’s inaction has allowed conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians to continue.

Instead of seriously addressing flaws in the street and station design, the situation has led to the selective enforcement of bicyclists. Police told Streetsblog they have received complaints from pedestrians about bike commuters, and yesterday issued a number of citations to bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk. SFPD Lt. Troy Dangerfield said today it was part of a “month-long campaign on bicycle and pedestrian enforcement.” However, the officers did not target drivers obstructing the bike lane.

Shirley Johnson, a member of Caltrain’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and a longtime leader of the Bikes ONBoard program, said she’s been riding on the sidewalk for years.

“I just thought that’s how you’re supposed to get to the station. There’s a curb cut right there, on the sidewalk,” she told Streetsblog. “No one has ever said anything and people are getting ticketed. That seems very unfair.”

“I’m very careful. I ride really slow on the sidewalk,” she continued. “But I can only imagine if someone’s late for the train they’re probably coming along at a pretty good clip. I always got there early enough that I never had to do that but I can see that it’s a safety concern.”

A great many bicyclists walk their bikes into the station. The bike parking building is to the left.

Hundreds of daily bike commuters use this facility to park their bikes, and on many days it's over capacity. It's also the home of Warm Planet Bikes

The bike lanes installed on Townsend Street on the north side of the Caltrain station were ushered in with quite the fanfare, just days after the permanent injunction against bike facilities was lifted in August, 2010. But this morning, like any other typical weekday (according to bike commuters I spoke to), the bike lane was at various times blocked by taxis, a Bud Light delivery truck, a shuttle bus and private automobiles. Some taxi drivers like to make sudden u-turns out of the taxi station, endangering bicyclists riding in the bike lane.

Caltrain’s 2008 Bicycle Access and Parking Plan acknowledges the challenges for bicyclists here:

There is no clearly‐delineated routing for cyclists to transition from riding to walking their bike to reach the station entrance and platforms. Cyclists are frequently observed riding on the section of sidewalk between the taxi stand (where there is a curb cut and a signed bollard) and the station entrance. This exacerbates passenger flow issues, as there are also many pedestrians in this area.

The plan recommended working with the SFMTA to consider relocating the taxi stand but nothing has been done since it was adopted, according to Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn, who added that “none of the recommended projects in the plan are funded.”

Johnson said Caltrain needs to address the problem immediately. “They need to have a safe, clearly marked pathway for cyclists to get to the station that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic.”

This taxi driver begins making a dangerous u-turn.

Law enforcement vehicles are often parked on the sidewalk, even during rush times. Caltrain was ordered to install the black bollards as a security measure.

Bike commuter Jean Fraser, who happens to be the director of the San Mateo County Public Health Department, sent us this word about the sting:

This morning at the Caltrain station I discovered two officers ticketing bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk as they approached the Caltrain station. When I asked if the officers were also enforcing the traffic laws against the taxis and private cars that double park and block the bike lanes leading to the station, forcing people who ride bikes to have to move into the traffic lanes, the officers stated they had been given instructions only to focus on bicyclists.

Given the limited resources of the SFPD, the small risk that bicyclists pose compared to the risks of vehicles, as well as the fact that virtually every person who rides a bike to Caltrain represents one less car on our streets, this choice to enforce only one law against only one group seems to be a very poor one. Not only does it not promote public safety much, but it diminishes the credibility of the police department as a neutral enforcer of our laws. People who ride bikes and people who drive cars should all be required to obey the laws, with enforcement actions focused on the areas that pose the greatest risk to the public’s safety.

A spokesperson for the SFPD, Sgt. Michael Andraychak, claims the enforcement was based on “some complaints” from pedestrians about people on bikes and scooters riding on the sidewalk. The enforcement started yesterday morning with education and warnings “that it’s against the law and unsafe to ride bicycles on the sidewalk.”

“They returned out there today and I’m told that at least one repeat offender was issued a citation. I don’t have any specific citation numbers,” he said.

When I pointed out to Andraychak that his comments contradict the standard SFPD line that the agency is not conducting targeted enforcement against bicyclists, maintaining that it’s enforcement for all road users, he gave this response:

“We received complaints from citizens about bicyclists and motor scooters on the sidewalk that were compromising pedestrian safety. Now, if someone had raised concerns about motor vehicles double parking or blocking the bike lane, if the officers weren’t aware of it, then that’s something that they can, in turn, address. I don’t appreciate your characterization there that we’re targeting, and only going after bicyclists. That’s not the case.”

Next time, SFPD might want to consider encouraging cyclists to ride in the street by keeping the bike lane clear of obstructions.

Flickr photo: b|m

Six months ahead of schedule, Caltrain announced today it has increased its bicycle capacity to two cars on every train. The move is expected to provide some relief to the many Caltrain riders who bike and are routinely bumped from trains when the bike cars are full.

“This is going to make a huge difference for cyclists using Caltrain on a daily basis,” said cycling Caltrain rider John Murphy. “This should have happened a long time ago, not only because it provides better service for those customers, but because it makes financial sense. A cyclist with a bike in the rack and sitting in a seat pays more fare money than two empty seats ever will.”

“Caltrain’s parking lots are full, and the population in walking distance or willing to use Muni, SamTrans, and VTA has been tapped out,” he added. “The bike program is a winner.”

The older Gallery-car trains, which make up 70 percent of Caltrain’s fleet, can now carry a total of 80 bikes each, while trains with the newer Bombardier cars hold 48 spots, according to a news release. The $300,000 project marks a 50 percent increase in the system’s bike capacity since 2008.

“To provide consistent service and facilitate boarding, bike cars are in the same position on every train,” the release states, with “one at the northern-most end of the train and one near the middle of the train, two cars north of the locomotive. Bike cars are identified with a yellow bike decal on the outside.”

The addition comes after strong calls were made to increase bike capacity from advocates like Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair Shirley Johnson, who leads the SF Bike Coalition’s Bikes ONboard Project. A Caltrain study conducted last May showed that increasing capacity would benefit all passengers.

“The financial data was pretty clear cut, and this should not have been as hard as it was,” said Murphy. “This is a tribute to the hard work of the Bikes ONBoard program, the ridership as a whole, and to Caltrain for responding, in the end, to customer feedback.”

Flickr photo: SP8254 - Catching Up

Board members and advocates praised the plan, which would spare riders from proposed station closures and minimal service limited to peak hours. Still, three board members took the unpopular vote to cut nearly half the trains, deriding the full-service plan as unrealistic and short-sighted.

“This is not a solution, this is a one-time spending plan,” said San Mateo County representative Omar Ahmad, who proposed a failed amendment that would’ve reduced service to 48 trains instead of the full 86. “Deferring preventative maintenance is not kicking the can down the road, it’s kicking it into the ditch…We didn’t dodge a bullet, we took this one straight in the chest.”

The budget plan keeps Caltrain afloat with increased funding contributions from member agencies as well as solutions like a 25-cent fare hike, a $1 increase in daily parking fees, $1.5 million from the maintenance budget, and a requested $3.5 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

San Francisco representatives Jose Cisneros and Sean Elsbernd voted for Ahmad’s amendment, which would’ve minimized funding contributions from the ailing local transit agencies. SFMTA Executive Director/CEO Nat Ford was not present, opting to attend the launch of SFPark at San Francisco City Hall.

“It’s a dream scenario,” said Elsbernd. “I can absolutely guarantee you, with the budget we’re about to adopt, we’ll be back here in January, February, declaring a fiscal emergency.”

Caltrain has declared fiscal emergencies for the last three years to fix its chronically ailing budget, but San Mateo representative Adrienne Tissier, the 86-train budget’s main proponent, remained optimistic about attaining long-term funding solutions.

“We’ve got the momentum,” said Tissier, who urged the adoption of a two-year plan to find permanent funding such as a voter-approved tax. “There’s not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – at the end of two years, we could go off a cliff. But the outcry from the public is they’re willing to step in and help find long-term solutions.”

But there’s too much risk in relying on a two-thirds vote to approve a tax measure, said Ahmad. “Getting a [dedicated] revenue source is going to be an extremely heavy lift. If that doesn’t happen, is the expectation that Caltrain will take several more months, wring its hands, and dance for rain?”

“I don’t think we can do that.”

Photo: Eric Gneckow, Los Gatos Patch

Has the governing board of Caltrain helped lead riders into the current storm of budget deficits?

As the Mercury News reported today, Caltrain’s Joint Powers Board (JPB) has for several years seemed to make its decisions in a passive manner, approving the last three years’ worth of agenda items without any deliberation. Despite the apparent pitfalls of relying on an unstable funding stream, members have yet to be seen actively pursuing other dedicated sources of revenue.

The board’s charter agreement [pdf] doesn’t actually obligate them to do so. The board, comprised of top representatives from SamTrans, the SFMTA, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), exists essentially to negotiate their own financial contributions, renew contracts, apply for grants, and approve changes like service cuts.

This policy is different from those at other Bay Area transit agencies like the SFMTA, which is mandated by San Francisco’s City Charter to “diligently seek to develop new sources of funding.” Lis Kniss, a new Caltrain director who also sits on the VTA board, told the Mercury News she hopes to emulate the more deliberative nature seen in the Santa Clara agency’s board meetings.

But for some members, even attendance rates at the monthly meetings is indicative of their level of interest. Nat Ford, board member and Executive Director/CEO of the SFMTA, has missed nearly half of them since 2007, the Mercury News found.

The most promising solutions for the funding crisis have so far come from other organizations like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Friends of Caltrain, a coalition of Peninsula city officials and activists. Earlier this month, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger said the need for draconian service cuts currently being considered by the board was “very doubtful.”

Short-term fixes proposed by the MTC, including parking fee increases and seeking out more competitive bidders for work contracts, seemed to be news to Caltrain officials. Last week, after giving an update on the Caltrain crisis to the SF County Transportation Authority, JPB Deputy Chief Executive Officer Gigi Harrington would only tell Streetsblog that she was “looking forward to hearing more about” the MTC’s ideas.

Even long-term solutions, such as a voter-approved regional gas tax – urged for some time now by advocates – have yet to see any interest from the agency.

The Caltrain board’s last meeting saw dozens of speakers show up to plead with directors against proposals for station closures and service reductions that would leave off-peak commuters stranded. Critics argued that any benefits garnered from such a strategy would be outweighed by the loss in ridership.

In the end, without making a single public comment, the board members called it a day.

Flickr photo: Lucius Kwok

Communities from San Francisco to San Jose may be saved from much of the expected crippling Caltrain service cuts. A new Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) plan being developed could make up much of the agency’s budget deficit for the next two years, said MTC Public Information Officer John Goodwin.

A large chunk of the coming fiscal year’s $30 million budget deficit could be balanced using short-term funding sources like fare and parking fee increases, employee contributions, diverted capital funds, and collected money owed by other transit agencies, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger told members at Wednesday’s Planning and Allocations Committee meeting. That could allow Caltrain to lessen the impacts of its expected budget cuts which would slash all but rush-hour train service and shut down up to seven stations.

“It’s late in the game, but the game isn’t over,” said Goodwin. Riders will still likely see “a reduction of service of some sort, but much less draconian than the proposal that has been the subject of public hearings in recent weeks,” he said. Approval of heavy cuts by the Caltrain Board next month seemed imminent without an alternative plan, but just what service would be retained by the new proposals is yet to be determined.

New hope for staving off the funding crisis means the Caltrain Board of Directors may postpone their vote until May. Goodwin said service reductions would still help make up about $10 million in the plan along with fare and parking fee increases as well as efficiency savings from an expiring contract with Amtrak. Capital funds reserved for system projects, including those for electrification and $5.5 million for the Dumbarton Rail project, are also being eyed for operational savings.

A fix for this fiscal year would allow time for the MTC, SFMTA, Valley Transit Authority (VTA), and SamTrans to broker a two-year plan to pursue long-term funding sources to fix the agency’s structurally unstable budget. Payments made to SamTrans on loans to the VTA and SFMTA, amounting to $8.9 million according to the Examiner, could be a part of that.

The agencies would also have time to pursue more permanent measures urged by riders, city officials, and other Bay Area organizations such as a regional gas tax, which could be seen on the November 2012 ballot.

A speaker testifies at today's Caltrain Board of Directors meeting. Photo: Aaron Bialick

The Caltrain Board of Directors declared a fiscal emergency for the third year in a row today as a step toward enacting severe service cuts to help close a $30 million deficit. At the meeting, dozens of speakers representing Peninsula families, city agencies and organizations plead with the board not to close stations next month.

“For the last ten years, Caltrain has either relied on one-time emergency funding or declared a fiscal emergency,” said Shirley Johnson of the Caltrain Bikes ONBoard project of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. She criticized the board for relying “year after year” on a fiscal emergency, which grants them the ability to quickly execute service cuts without environmental review. “It’s wrong,” she said.

If the proposed cuts are approved, service on the system would be reduced to peak-hour trains only, which agency staff says carry 80 percent of its ridership. However, the suspension of service at up to 16 stations along the corridor was heavily criticized as an ineffective means to save operational costs.

“The $30 million deficit has been created by our county governments decommitting from the funding necessary to offset these costs,” said daily rider Tom Gormond. ”The actions being proposed… will do nothing in terms of reducing the primary problem of all commuter railroads – the high amount of fixed costs that are required to provide service.  In fact, they will have the opposite effect by reducing ridership and increasing the need for greater amounts of government support.”

“Obviously, ever increasing amounts of government support will not happen, so the demise of Caltrain is almost ensured,” he added.

The majority of the roughly 1,350 public comments received prior to today’s meeting focused on station closures. Many speakers argued they would cripple the mobility of Caltrain-dependent communities.

“Without Lawrence Station, we wouldn’t be able to have our daughter go to her school, plain and simple,” said June Moss, a single mother of two, who echoed the sentiments voiced by many students and parents at the hearing.

“Caltrain is the central component of the transit infrastructure serving our burgeoning biotechnology industry,” said South San Francisco Mayor Kevin Mullin, who argued with other Peninsula city officials, developers and employers that station closures would undermine investments in transit-oriented development along the corridor.

“Our city’s sole Caltrain station will be critical in servicing” the 6,000 new employees at an office complex planned nearby, he said.

Real estate located within one-half of a mile of Burlingame station is estimated to be worth $100 million more than other development due to its proximity, according to Mayor Terry Nagel.

“I consider Caltrain the aorta, and I consider the rest of these agencies the veins,” said rider Victoria Carmona, who praised the vital role of Peninsula transit agencies. “I feel that if you cut them off, the result will be necrosive. You may never get the ridership back.”

An increase in the gas tax, parking fees, and seeking advertising revenue were among the suggestions roundly urged by speakers as dedicated funding sources to help close the budget gap. Some riders voiced their willingness to pay higher fares to retain service.

“Isn’t this an educative moment for our young students to learn about sustainability issues?” reflected Father Paul Sheridan, President of Bellarmine Preparatory School, which is near the College Park Station. “Isn’t it ironic,” he asked, “that a lot of press is on the high-speed rail, whereas it’s the local service that’s being threatened?”

A final vote on service cuts is scheduled for April 7.

Up to 16 stations would no longer see Caltrain service under the latest proposal. Image: Caltrain

The Caltrain Board of Directors has decided to hold a series of public hearings and community meetings before voting on a declaration of fiscal emergency and approving dramatic cuts that would slash service and potentially close up to 16 stations.

“Hopefully, we will be able to come up with additional funding sources before we are forced to implement drastic service changes,” Caltrain Executive Director Michael Scanlon said in a statement.

If approved, the cuts would become effective July 2 and include a reduction in weekday service from 86 to 48 peak-hour trains along with eliminating midday, evening, and weekend service altogether, according to Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn. The board is also considering a 25-cent base fare hike.

Under the latest proposal, the six stations south of San Jose Diridon Station would no longer see Caltrain service and up to seven of the ten following stations could be closed: Bayshore, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, Hayward Park, Belmont, San Antonio, Lawrence, Santa Clara, and College Park. Combined with three weekend-only stops, closures could affect a total of 16, or half of the system’s 32 stations.

Although Caltrain lacks a dedicated funding stream, it is considered one of the Bay Area’s most efficient public transit systems with a 47-percent farebox recovery, second only to BART [pdf]. Its administrative staff costs are among the lowest in the country at 6.4 percent of the budget. With the proposed service reductions, Caltrain would see its fiscal year 2012 deficit of $30 million reduced to $4.7 million.

Caltrain is offering the public a chance to comment at four community meetings. It will also hold a public hearing at the board’s next scheduled meeting on March 3.

Caltrain community meetings:

Feb. 14 – 7 pm. San Jose City Hall
200 East Santa Clara St., City Council Chambers, San Jose

Feb. 16 – 6 pm. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
1 South Van Ness, Atrium, San Francisco

Feb. 17 – 6 pm. Gilroy Senior Center
7371 Hanna St., Gilroy

Feb. 17 – 6 pm. San Mateo County Transit District
1250 San Carlos Ave., second floor auditorium San Carlos

Photo: smif

There was a groundswell of support to save Caltrain at the Friends of Caltrain Summit Saturday, an event that brought a standing room only crowd to the auditorium at the SamTrans building in San Carlos. Friends of Caltrain is a grassroots effort attempting to stop Caltrain from cutting evening, midday, weekend, and Gilroy service.

The summit was an early step in a long process to keep Caltrain financially viable. Long-term funding for the railroad may take years to secure, but in the short term, Friends of Caltrain is urging people to take action by writing their representatives to prevent drastic cuts in Caltrain service. 

Yoriko Kishomoto, former mayor of Palo Alto, kicked off the summit by outlining the dire financial state of Caltrain. Caltrain is facing a $30 million budget deficit for fiscal year 2012. To close that gap, Caltrain will need to reduce its service from 86 trains per day to 48 trains per day, shrinking the operation to commute periods only. Even with only 48 weekday trains, Caltrain still projects a budget deficit of $4.7 million, but the agency thinks it can find that money somehow.

The Friends of Caltrain organizers emphasized that service cuts are not a done deal. Time is very short, but the attention that is being brought to bear on the issue may have an impact on monies that could be used to shore up the railroad, at least in the short term.

Longer term, the overriding consensus at the meeting centered on the importance of a dedicated funding source for Caltrain. Caltrain, the only transit agency in the Bay Area without a steady funding source, relies on funding from transit agencies in the three counties Caltrain serves. These partner transit agencies are facing difficult financial times themselves, and have cut their support for Caltrain.

Representative Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo), was a keynote speaker, and she expressed her support for finding ways to keep the commuter rail line afloat, including the possibility of implementing new taxes to raise money for Caltrain. She emphasized that easy answers don’t exist, but she said, “We owe it to our kids to preserve and grow this transit system.”

There were two panel discussions to ready participants the main focus of the event, breakout sessions to collect ideas from the community. Panelists told the history of Caltrain and it continues to be a vital transportation system for Bay Area commerce and communities.

Chuck Harvey, executive director of Caltrain operations, explained that Caltrain operates more efficiently that many peer transit agencies. All public transit is subsidized, but Caltrain farebox recovery is 47 percent, better than all other Bay Area transit agencies except BART.

Generally speaking, those who commute by car may not understand the benefits they receive from Caltrain. If Caltrain were to stop operating, there would be an additional 300 million annual passenger miles on Bay Area roads, according to Harvey. Congestion on highways 101 and 280 would noticeably increase.

Terry Nagel, mayor of Burlingame, said that “Washington DC is laughing at us, because all the cities do is bicker.” She said we need to consolidate our political power, because otherwise it will be ‘divide and conquer’.

San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the chair of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that runs Caltrain, said he will be “Caltrain’s biggest cheerleader in San Francisco.” He said that many San Franciscans don’t care about Caltrain, but they don’t realize how much more traffic congestion and pressure on parking spaces there would be in San Francisco without Caltrain.

A member of the audience expressed concern that cutting Caltrain service would have a negative impact on transit providers up and down the Peninsula, because Caltrain delivers many passengers to Muni, SamTrans, and VTA buses. Elsbernd agreed that the demise of Caltrain could be the start of a death spiral for other transit operators as well.

Rebecca Long, senior analyst at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), said the MTC has the authority to place on the ballot a gas tax up to 10 cents per gallon, but it would need a two-thirds majority to pass. She noted that should such a measure be approved, the funds would be distributed to various things, not just Caltrain.

A presentation from the BIKES ONboard team of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition showed that Caltrain could earn $1 million more in ticket revenue annually by replacing empty seats with bike racks to meet demand.

For the afternoon session, the attendees split into breakout groups to brainstorm ideas to help save the railroad.

The finance breakout group came up with short-term and long-term solutions. Short-term solutions included temporarily redirecting money from the Dumbarton rail project to Caltrain, charging more for parking, and adding onboard bike capacity to increase ridership and ticket revenue.

The proposed long-term financial solutions included levying a gas tax, and increasing ridership through service improvements such as WiFi onboard trains and coordinating schedules with other transit agencies to improve connectivity.

The messaging break out group developed myriad messages that emphasize the value of Caltrain to the Bay Area. Caltrain saves money overall for the public, because driving is heavily subsidized. The group also noted that riding Caltrain is less stressful than driving and is a more environmentally friendly way to commute.

A third breakout group focused on how to expand outreach to let people know about Caltrain’s impending financial collapse. The group suggested targeting outreach to chambers of commerce and developers of transit-oriented development, as well as organizations for the elderly, current Caltrain commuters, students, and the media.

A fourth group considered long-term vision for Caltrain. They proposed to connect transit region-wide, as well as to control costs and increase ridership to raise revenue. Electrification of Caltrain is in the works, but it was suggested that hybrid diesel multi-units might be an interim option to avoid the expense of overhead wires.

“The turnout [for the summit] shows that people in the Caltrain corridor are committed to protecting this important resource.  The vision of walkable, bikeable, sustainable communities is only possible if we keep and improve transit,” said Adina Levin, one of the organizers of the summit.

The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board will hold its monthly meeting at 10am, Thursday, February 3 at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos.

Flickr Photo: Nick Fisher

The mobility of Caltrain’s 40,000 daily riders on the Peninsula and the South Bay could drastically suffer under deep service cuts being considered to close a $30 million budget gap, but a movement to get the commuter rail service agency out of the red and on a path toward long-term sustainability is gaining momentum.

“Everyone says it’s ironic, because it really is one of the best performing transit agencies in the whole Bay Area, but it’s the one potentially in the most trouble because we lack any dedicated funding,” said Yoriko Kishimoto, a Palo Alto councilmember and Friends of Caltrain organizer.

Last Friday, a summit brought together a number of transportation officials, advocates, neighborhood groups, riders and public officials hoping to rescue Caltrain. This Saturday, Friends of Caltrain, a “grassroots coalition of cities, neighborhood groups, employers, environmental groups, transit advocates and, most importantly, residents and transit riders” in the Bay Area, are helping to organize the “Save Our Caltrain!” Summit to address the agency’s lack of dedicated regional funding.

“Caltrain is threatened with bankruptcy, or just as bad, it could die a slow death by entering a downward spiral of reduced service and reduced ridership,” said Kishimoto. “Caltrain ridership is the equivalent of at least three full lanes of traffic on US 101…[It] is essential to the Peninsula’s quality of life, our commute alternatives, and economic vitality and the three counties must come together to work on solutions.”

The system relies heavily on support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commision and transit agencies in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to help cover its costs each year. However, with California transit agencies struggling across the board, those contributions have been slashed.

Without further help from regional elected officials, Caltrain is looking at “18 months of pretty devastating cuts,” said Kishimoto.

Caltrain Board Chair and San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd told the Mercury News that service could be curtailed to minimum peak hours, with weekday trains reduced from 86 to 48 along with the elimination of weekend trains and all service between Gilroy and San Jose Diridon Station.

Those service cuts will likely impose a hardship on the many commuters, businesses, and institutions who depend heavily upon Caltrain for transportation, and Friends of Caltrain is “looking to create a political movement across the three counties to protect the regional transit that links them,” said Kishimoto.

Aside from looking at ways to help Caltrain stave off immediate cuts, the group is eyeing long-term revenue sources. High-speed rail funds, for example, could become one light at the end of the tunnel.

Despite political difficulties in the past, Kishimoto hopes “the time has come” to raise the gas tax. She thinks a Bay Area-wide one-cent increase approved by voters in November 2012 would be the most realistic option to substantially bolster Caltrain’s reliable revenue. The 1.3 billion gallons of gas sold every year in the three counties served by Caltrain alone would bring in $13 million, almost half of the current deficit, she said.

Additionally, a tri-county payroll tax of just $20 per year could bring in $35 million, well over this year’s entire deficit, according to Kishimoto. She also thinks congestion pricing and high-occupancy toll lanes are “seriously worth considering.” They would relieve congestion on the 101 freeway, increase Caltrain ridership, and provide drivers the option of paying a premium for a predictable commute, which she said is what most people are really interested in.

But pricing on the 101 freeway alone could have the undesirable effect of  ”bumping” motor traffic onto local streets, and Kishimoto sees a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax “for wherever you’re travelling” as the ideal long-term solution.

Reduced reliability on Caltrain could potentially create a surge in driving and freeway congestion on the Peninsula as well as put a serious dent in the wallets of corridor residents who, according to TransForm Executive Director Stuart Cohen, own 0.7 fewer vehicles, emit 42 percent less greenhouse gases, and spend $550 less per year on transportation compared to the Bay Area average.

Stanford University student Tiffany Lau is able to travel independently without a car by depending on Caltrain. “[It]’s one of the best alternatives for getting around the Bay Area,” she said in a Friends of Caltrain press release. “It’s pretty easy to get from city to city.” In 2010, Stanford University reportedly relied on the trains to transport 19 percent of its employees.

UC Berkeley Professor of City and Regional Planning Elizabeth Deakin also pointed out the economic benefits of the compact, transit-oriented development that Caltrain encourages around its stations as well as the environmental and health benefits it provides.

“The idea that we would let a tremendous asset go to waste is a foolish mistake…the benefits certainly outweigh the costs,” she was quoted as saying in the Patch.

Given the immediate need to reduce driving to curb climate change and oil dependency, Kishimoto says Friends of Caltrain hopes “that we can turn this potential disaster into a transformation.”

“Save Our Caltrain!” Summit

Speakers at this weekend’s summit will include Executive Director of the Sierra Club Michael Brune, San Francisco Supervisor and Caltrain Joint Powers Board of Directors Chair Sean Elsbernd, as well as Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier.

“Speakers and panels in the morning will tell the Caltrain story and explore a range of options. The afternoon will be devoted to workshops to solicit the public’s innovative ideas on supporting Caltrain at this time of general fiscal crisis.”

When: Saturday, January 29, 2011, 8:30 am to 2:30 pm.

Where: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos (near Caltrain).

Sign up: FriendsofCaltrain.com

Photo: sfbike

Dr. Shirley Johnson is the chair of the newly formed Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee and the head of the Bikes ONboard project sponsored by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

Caltrain recently released a Bike Count and Dwell Time Study, conducted over five weeks during April and May. The study results support bicycle advocates’ position that increasing bike capacity will benefit riders, increase ticket revenue, and simplify operations without a negative impact on service.

Caltrain commissioned the study at a cost $93,000 to assess the impact of a 35 percent increase in bike capacity completed in November 2009. The public strongly supported a larger increase in bike capacity, but Caltrain insisted on a modest increase, because staff feared that more bicycles would cause dwell time delays, defined as the time trains wait at stations for passengers to exit and board. In the past, bicyclists have been inaccurately assigned as the cause of dwell time delays, because Caltrain rules require bicyclists to board last.

The study confirmed that higher ridership, not bicyclists, causes increased dwell time. The more people boarding, the longer the train must wait at the station. This finding is consistent with historical data, which shows that on-time performance deteriorates with increasing total ridership, irrespective of the number of bicycle boardings.

Based on the study, Caltrain staff’s recommendation is to add more bike capacity. Caltrain operates two different kinds of passenger cars, the older gallery and the newer Bombardier cars. The estimated cost is only $300,000 to upgrade bike capacity so that all fifteen gallery train sets will have 80 bike spaces, but funding has not been identified and a timeline has not been set. Prioritizing this capital expense is prudent, because past increases in bike capacity have been paid back in less than six months with increased ticket revenue, an excellent financial outcome.

Caltrain’s recommended upgrade is a step in the right direction, but leaving the five Bombardier train sets each with only 48 bike spaces means that only three-fourths of train sets will have 80 bike spaces. Caltrain could improve its service even more by upgrading the remaining five Bombardier train sets to provide consistent bike capacity, simplifying Caltrain operations and eliminating equipment substitutions as one of the main causes of bicycle bumps (service denial due to insufficient bike capacity).

Cyclists are routinely bumped from trains, documented in cyclists’ bump reports made to the Caltrain Board. Essentially all reported bumps occur during commute periods from trains with less than 80 bike spaces (bike capacity currently varies with 40, 48, or 80 bike spaces per train). Caltrain’s study corroborates user reports that bumps occur during commute periods on low-bike-capacity trains. Alarmingly, reported bumps have increased by four-fold since the study was conducted.

The study captured 10 trains that either bumped bikes or were over capacity in the bike car, but limited sampling missed some problem trains. If you count the trains for which cyclists have reported bumps in 2010, there are actually 21 problem trains.

Caltrain bicycle commuters have long said that Caltrain needs more bike capacity, consistent with the study findings. However, a recent news article incorrectly claimed that Caltrain does not have a bike capacity problem, an unfortunate conclusion based on how the data were summarized.

The relevant metric is peak demand, but Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research, the firm conducting the study, analyzed the bike count data simplistically by calculating the average for all trains and all stops. Midday trains run largely empty, and all trains carry far fewer passengers at end stations than during peak load. The average drops significantly when these low ridership counts are included, resulting in misleading statistics that mask the peak-load problem.

To their credit, Caltrain staff looked past the misleading statistics to recommend increasing bike capacity. Once Caltrain improves reliability by adding enough bike capacity to eliminate bumping, cyclists who have abandoned Caltrain will return and new cyclists will come aboard. It will be a positive outcome for all – more fare-box revenue for Caltrain, less congestion on Bay Area roads, and a healthy commute for cyclists.

Flickr photo: AgentAkit

As Bay Area transit agencies transition from paper passes to the Clipper smart card, operators like the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni, are hoping their most loyal customers take the switch in stride. To this end, the SFMTA started selling its November Muni A Fast Passes and disability Regional Transit Connection (RTC) passes online this weekend, and the agency is working overtime with targeted outreach to familiarize the nearly 50,000 A Pass and RTC users how to load their re-usable Clipper cards before the November 1st deadline, when those paper passes will no longer be accepted for Muni service.

“We have more than 40,000 customers who use the “A” pass and more than 7,000 who use the RTC stickers, so it’s critical that they make this transition as early as possible,” SFMTA Executive Director Nat Ford said in a release.

Even before the mandatory switch for A Pass and RTC holders, Muni customers have increasingly adopted Clipper on their own accord. When MTC officially announced the transition from Translink to Clipper on June 16th, Muni realized only 20,000 average weekday boardings using the smart card. As of October 8th, Muni had 108,000 average weekday boardings, a five-fold increase and half of total Bay Area Clipper usage. Of the slightly more than 40,000 current A Pass users, roughly one third already use Clipper. RTC pass holders will automatically be given Clipper-compatible cards when they renew, either online or in person at vendors or SFMTA customer service centers.

The SFMTA began deploying customer service ambassadors in August along with the Clipper street teams that have been providing information and customer service since the end of 2008 in Muni Metro stations. According to the SFMTA, since December 2008, the Muni Clipper street teams have distributed more than 70,000 adult cards and accepted more than 20,000 seniors and youth applications [sample Clipper outreach schedule pdf here for this week]. The SFMTA also noted it has undertaken an aggressive internal campaign to inform SFMTA employees, especially frontline Muni personnel, of the Clipper transition and how to assist customers. This campaign includes an orientation and multiple update videos as well as in-person training, of note after Muni operators on cable cars had reportedly been unable to work hand-held Clipper card readers.

Clipper use across the Bay Area is on a steady rise, but because Muni carries so many passengers, the transition from older fare media to the reusable card will be the bellwether for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which administers Clipper. MTC had come under fire for its early outreach in Chinese and concerns about staffing the Clipper customer service center with Cantonese speakers, but MTC spokesperson John Goodwin said they were working to resolve the concerns.

Goodwin pointed to the selection of the Chinese name for Clipper “Lu Lu Tong,” which essentially connotes “the go everywhere card” in translation, as an indication of MTC’s progress. Goodwin explained the name selection process, which involved a focus group of nearly 100 people across the Bay Area and in China, where they narrowed down approximately two dozen names to three finalists. BART Board President James Fang made the final decision, according to Goodwin, given his central role spearheading the translation process.

Overall, Goodwin said the MTC was pleased with the Clipper transition, noting across all agencies they are seeing an average increase of 10 percent each week. Acknowledging there have been “growing pains,” Goodwin called Clipper “a great success.”

Asked if he’s concerned with the looming deadlines at Muni and AC Transit for complete transition from paper passes (AC Transit Adult 10 ride and 31 day passes will no longer be sold in their old format after October 31 and no longer accepted after December 31st), Goodwin said, “I can’t characterize my feelings as being worried about it, but I recognize at the same time that a lot of people are resistant to change and accept it grudgingly,” he said.

Ultimately, Goodwin added, “they’ll be glad they did.”

Bay Area Clipper Card Stats

Average weekday Clipper boardings through October 8th:

• 215,124 – Total
• 2,124 – Caltrain
• 4,400 – Golden Gate Ferries
• 8,150 – Golden Gate Buses
• 32,550 – AC Transit
• 59,900 – BART
• 108,000 – Muni

Monthly “A” Fast Pass customers can get their Clipper cards from any Clipper retailer, by visiting clippercard.com or by calling 877.878.8883. Please tell us about you experience with Clipper in the comments.

Dr. Shirley Johnson, a Caltrain rider and bicycle commuter, who heads up the BIKES ONboard project sponsored by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, said the agency is losing over $1 million in annual fare box revenue because Caltrain continues to bump bicyclists, who she points out have become its fastest growing customer segment.

If Caltrain would provide 80 bike spaces per train, converting otherwise empty seats to racks, Johnson said it could help pull the agency out of its budget woes. A Gallery bike car can currently accommodate 40 bikes, while the Bombardier bike cars can handle up to 24 bikes. Some trains have two bike cars, so bike capacity varies from 40 to 80 bikes per train. Caltrain began increasing bike capacity last year, but it has been paltry compared to the demand.

"Caltrain needs more passengers and bicyclists want to ride the train but we need to be able to have a space for our bikes and getting bumped is not an option when we need to get to work on time," said Johnson. "If Caltrain provides the bike space, we'll buy tickets, we'll bring Caltrain revenue, we'll make it so Caltrain does not need to cut service. Once a public transit agency starts cutting service it's a death spiral."

Johnson said she suspects Caltrain views it as an issue of bicyclists versus walk-on passengers and "that's just not the way it is at all." The reality, she said, is that most trains have hundreds of empty seats during peak hours.

Tracy Corral, who has been a multi-modal Caltrain commuter for "years and years," pedals from her San Jose home to the Diridon station for the daily train ride to her job in Redwood City.

"There is a lot of empty space that is not being utilized by people who just walk on the train. They have room to expand the bike program so more people can get on with their bikes and have the 80 spaces per train, and it wouldn't cost that much to make that change, and they'd have room for people who pay to ride Caltrain with their bikes," said Corral.

BIKES ONboard graphic

The city of San Francisco has made no significant improvements to its bicycle infrastructure since 2006 due to a legal issue with the city's Bike Plan, so SFMTA bike counts are a worst-case model for increased bicycle ridership. With advertising and promotion, bicycle ridership is much higher, as evidenced by Bike-to-Work-Day bike counts and SFBC membership. If Caltrain had promoted its on board bicycle service (and had sufficient bike capacity), there would have been approximately 80% more bikes-on-board passengers in 2009 compared with 2006, corresponding to over $1 million in ticket revenue in 2009.

"I looked at the calculations, and I'm a skeptical guy, and I do analysis at work, and I believe these numbers," said Jeffrey Oldham, a member of the BIKES ONBoard project who works as a computer analyst in San Jose. "We're collecting the number of bumps. It is an approximation because we don't have full countings of every single person who is denied service but it's pretty easy to see that we'd be able to make hundreds of thousands dollars in additional revenue if we weren't having people bumped."

BIKES ONboard graphic

"When they have service disruptions they'll send a different train up the line. So cyclists are expecting a two-bike car train, they have a last minute train set swap, and they send a one-bike car train up the line, and then cyclists get bumped," she said.

Asked for a response, Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn said the agency is currently conducting a bicycle count study.

"Results of the count are currently being analyzed and a report is being written, which will be provided to the public. The report will provide a better understanding of bicycle needs on Caltrain. The report will be one of the first items to be considered by the new Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee," she said. 

And regarding the calculation that Caltrain could avert service cuts by accommodating more bicyclists? 

"At first glance the report appears to be based on a number of inaccurate assumptions. Since this is the first time we have seen the report, we will need several days to review it before we can provide a response."

BIKES ONboard is launching a campaign today to encourage all riders to "Take Action to Save Caltrain!" and write the agency to demand more bicycle capacity. Volunteers will also be handing out these flyers (PDF) at Caltrain stations.

Facing a budget deficit that threatens to end train service altogether, the Caltrain Board of Directors voted today to declare a fiscal emergency and began considering some new options to cover the deficit for the next fiscal year, including raising fares.

Caltrain has whittled together enough money through partially restored state funding and one-time savings that it may get through the next fiscal year, 2011, without gutting the railroad, but with a $12.5 million deficit left to cover, its staff is proposing cutting some service altogether, including the three trains that reach Gilroy daily, and increasing fares by 25 cents.

Working out the numbers in the past month, Caltrain staff has found that cutting service has limited returns, said Caltrain Deputy CEO Chuck Harvey. That's because Caltrain has an especially high fare box recovery ratio. "We're getting over 40 percent [of our revenue] out of the fare box," said Harvey. "So when we start cutting service, we start losing revenue in a big way. You have to cut a lot to get a net savings."

By cutting the three trains to Gilroy, Caltrain expects it would save $770,000 annually, versus just $200,000 from cutting four midday trains altogether, and just $170,000 from cutting four early morning and late evening trains. Harvey said those trains have much higher ridership, so cutting them cuts deeply into fare revenue, offsetting much of the savings on operating costs, compared to the more sparsely patronized Gilroy trips.

Caltrain would get even less out of cutting weekend service: staff projects it would save just $420,000 from cutting weekend service altogether, since weekend riders are generally different than the commuters who ride the train during the week, and most pay per trip instead of using an unlimited monthly pass.

Without taking any votes on the budget today, the board appeared to favor the Gilroy option. As for fare increases, the options include a 25-cent increase in the base fare, netting $2 million annually, an identical increase in the fare for each travel zone, netting $2.8 million, or an increase in the employee-sponsored Go Pass from $140 to $155, bringing in $150,000 annually.

"Fares are a sensitive subject, particularly in this economy," said Harvey. They were last increased in January 2009, and if the board approves it, they could increase again next January. While the path to a balanced budget still isn't certain, he said the combination of fare increases, service cuts, and capital funding swaps should leave the agency in a position to "cobble this together." The service changes could go into effect as soon as October.

The board will take a vote on the FY2011 budget on July 1, with money from the service changes and fare increases assumed. But an actual vote on both of those changes won't happen until later: first, the agency will hold public hearings in July and August on any changes. Oddly enough, that means the public could be commenting on major changes that haven't been approved yet, but are assumed for budgeting purposes.

Things look even worse for fiscal year 2012, however, when the agency faces a projected $35.6 million deficit.

Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon said he was "cautiously optimistic" about fiscal year 2011, and that the board could approve a budget that would "buy us another 12 months." But there are "dark, dark clouds ahead in the not too distant future," he said.

"The cliff at the end of the next year is an extremely steep cliff and extremely difficult one to fall off and survive," he added.

The fiscal crisis at Caltrain snowballed in April when Scanlon, who also heads SamTrans, announced that agency, hit hard by the poor economy itself, would likely pull 70 percent of their funding contribution to Caltrain. That triggered similar moves from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

At the time, Scanlon suggested Caltrain might need to cut 50 percent of its service to balance its budget. That's no longer looking likely for fiscal year 2011, but it's still uncertain how Caltrain will make it through FY2012.

"We have not been able to find a service model that will work to keep this railroad open" in FY2012," said Harvey.

There's still no relief in sight for Caltrain, which faces a dire financial situation that could force the agency to cut 50 percent of service by next year.

Even if the train operator pulls a rabbit out of its hat for the coming fiscal year, the budget deficit for the following year will be even worse, forcing it to ultimately come up with a more stable source of funding, instead of relying on major contributions from SamTrans, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

At the Caltrain Board's first meeting since Executive Director Mike Scanlon dropped the bombshell that his other transit agency, SamTrans, would likely be pulling 70 percent of its contribution to Caltrain, staff presented a budget picture that continues to look catastrophic.

Nat Ford, who heads the SFMTA and also sits on the Caltrain Board, confirmed that his agency would follow suit in pulling an equivalent part of its contribution, as was expected.

Caltrain originally expected to have expenses of about $102.4 million in fiscal year 2011 (FY12), but only $78.9 million in revenue. It's since identified about $6 million in savings, and will get back $5 million in state transit assistance (STA) funds, which were slashed by the state earlier, leaving a deficit of $12.5 million. In fiscal year 2012 (FY12), the outlook is even bleaker, with just $63.8 million in revenue projected, leaving a $38.9 million deficit.

The agency's PowerPoint slide with the FY12 figure states ominously, "Unknown if there is a service model that can operate at FY2012 revenue level."

Scanlon acknowledged that Caltrain is the "stepchild" of the other transit agencies, "despite these loving foster parents." He also defended his decision to pull 70 percent of SamTrans' contribution, casting the move as a matter of self-preservation for the agency. "We need to do something to wean ourselves off of Caltrain," said Scanlon, pointing to a $28.5 million deficit at SamTrans, out of a $135 million budget.

Caltrain has lost $10 million in each of the past three years, and all three of the contributing transit agencies have also lost STA funds, leaving them with less money to send Caltrain's way. In addition to floating a ballot measure before voters that would create a dedicated revenue stream, Scanlon said the solution lies in electrifying and modernizing the diesel railroad.

"If we do electrification, it cuts our financial problems in half," he said. "It makes for a better business model."

The Caltrain Board will hold public meetings on the proposed cuts before taking action. Reducing service by 50 percent would likely mean eliminating midday, post-peak evening, and weekend service.

Ironically, Caltrain is set to make a massive service cut just a few years before the corridor could get a major upgrade because of the planned high-speed rail line. That would mean electrification of Caltrain and full grade separation along the Peninsula.

Scanlon described the high-speed rail capital improvements as a banquet which Caltrain will only enjoy if it doesn't die in the meantime. "If we don't starve along the way, we'll be fine," he said.

Not surprisingly, Caltrain riders are upset, including many of Streetsblog's readers. Soren Peterson, a Caltrain commuter who lives in San Francisco, said the cuts would force him to drive a lot more.

"I live in Potrero Hill and commute to Palo Alto for work," explained Peterson. "Although I try to be out by the last limited train of the evening, this is not always possible and as a result I occasionally depend on one of the evening trains."

Those evening trains could soon be gone, according to Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon. At the Caltrain Board of Directors meeting last Thursday, Scanlon announced that the agency is broke, and may need to wipe out fifty percent of its service. That's in part because the state has pulled $30 million in funding from the agency in the past three years, but it's also because Caltrain relies on unstable local funding sources.

The three local transit agencies that contribute money to Caltrain -- Muni, VTA, and SamTrans -- are all financially strapped themselves this year, and Scanlon, who also manages SamTrans, said he'll be asking his other agency to reduce its contribution to Caltrain by 70 percent. If that happens, the SFMTA and the VTA would likely follow suit, leaving Caltrain with a $30 million deficit -- nearly a third of its $97 million budget.

"We've just begun working on this budget and we wanted to come out early because we are partners, and let our partners know that SamTrans was seriously considering reducing their contribution," said SamTrans spokesperson Christine Dunn.

Caltrain would preserve its commuter-hour service, but riders would be left in the lurch if they ever needed to return home early or late. "I already have to come in a bit earlier then I'd like because of the schedule (either I'm 30-40 minutes early or I'm 30-40 minutes late,) so any tweaking could mean an even longer day," said Caltrain commuter (and prolific Streetsblog commenter) Mike Sonn.

"We won't be buying a car, so if the cuts are bad enough I'll probably have to explore SamTrans options or find someone to car pool with," he added.

Sonn and Peterson both said they're looking for ways to productively voice their concerns about the cuts. One way to do that is by contacting local elected officials, which are listed on the BayRail Alliance's website.

Caltrain has a complex governance structure that doesn't answer to any elected official directly, but BayRail Alliance President Andy Chow said it's time to look at changing that.

"For now, we are trying to find out the situation so that we can determine the necessary action," he said. "So far Caltrain hasn't declared a fiscal emergency or scheduled public meetings to reduce service. I believe that some type of legislative change in Sacramento is necessary, and that we will need to show our support for it."

One of the best courses of action may be to simply keep riding Caltrain, said Chow. "The more riders use the service, the less likely the elected officials would want to eliminate it."

BayRail Alliance has also set up a new blog called Green Caltrain to follow the most recent developments. One of its most recent post looks at the specter of turning Caltrain into a commuter-only rail system, as well as exploring Caltrain's funding situation. Another dissects "anti-Caltrain arguments."

The blog's authors hope it will provide resources for constructively responding to the challenges facing Caltrain.

For their part, Caltrain supporters are looking for direction on how to try to stop the cuts.

"I'm definitely thinking about contacting elected officials (to tell them how important Caltrain is for my mobility and thus, how important it is to me that there be some sort of political support for a dedicated funding source)," said Peterson. "But I'm unclear of what would be the best use of my time."

Caltrain must balance its budget by June 1 of next year, but cuts could come as soon as this fall. One clear way to make your voice heard is to attend the next Caltrain Board of Directors meeting, on May 6 at the SamTrans Administrative Offices, 1250 San Carlos Ave., in San Carlos. The meeting is at 10 a.m.