It's been a while since I wrote a diary about trains and public transit, so I thought I'd write this rant. I'm going to be criticizing Bay Area transit agencies to no end in this piece, but only because I truly want a world-class transit system deserving of a world-class region. The current status quo is simply not cutting it. Not even close. I can't name a single other metropolitan area in the world with the chaotic patchwork of different transit agencies that we have in San Francisco. To those unfamiliar with the area, I will try to quickly summarize how the Bay's transit is governed.
San Francisco itself is governed by SFMTA (whose transit arm is commonly known as Muni), which blankets the city with bus lines and a pre-metro light rail system that also has the infamous distinction of being the slowest fleet in the country (at 8.1 mph). To the south is San Mateo County, which runs its own bus agency in SamTrans. Further to the south is Santa Clara County, which has its own bus and light rail system called Valley Transportation Agency (commonly known as VTA). href="http://www.caltrain.com/">Caltrain, which runs a single commuter rail line up and down the peninsula between these three counties. With no dedicated funding source, Caltrain is dependent on these three agencies' generosity every year when drafting its budget.
To the east of San Francisco is Alameda County and Contra Costa County, whose western half falls under the jurisdiction of an agency called AC Transit. The eastern half is run by County Connection. Transit between San Francisco and north into Marin County is managed by Golden Gate Ferry, and Golden Gate Transit. Travel within Marin County is managed by Marin Transit. Marin and Sonoma are currently constructing a commuter rail line between the two, so the only natural thing is to do is to create yet another transit agency, this one ironically named SMART. BART, the crown jewel of Bay Area transit, was supposed to "ring the bay" with grade-separated metro-level service. That is the kind of unity the Bay Area needs. Instead, it only serves San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties, and a toe in northern San Mateo County. Including the assorted smaller agencies (and partnerships between two or more of the larger ones), we have over fifteen transit brand agencies serving our humble bay. All in one metro area. (I know the census divides San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose in two, but anyone who lives here will tell you otherwise.) Compare this mess to metro NYC, by far the country's largest single consumer of rail transport. By and large, these agencies cover the entire area: Long Island Railway, Metro-North, NYC Subway, Staten Island Railway, and PATH. With the exception of the latter, these are all run by a single entity: the MTA.
Now, San Francisco prides itself in being a "transit first" city. Regional politicians boast of our comprehensive transit options. When comparing ourselves to the sprawl of our southern neighbors in Los Angeles, Bay Areans smugly point to our own network of trains and buses with pride. But we forget that Los Angeles at least has a unified transit agency in "Metro". With the sheer amount of transit agencies in the region comes along the inevitable nightmarish experiences when it comes to timed transfers, fare-sharing, inter-fighting, and bloated bureaucracy. Anyone who has ever arrived at Millbrae Station from SFO on BART, intending to take advantage of the "timed transfer" to Caltrain, can tell you how they arrived just in time to watch the hourly Caltrain train pull out of the station. That is not how a "transit-first city" operates. The problem with public transit has become so deep that private bus operators (derided by locals as "Google Buses") now ferry an astounding 35,000 workers each day between San Francisco and the tech campuses in Silicon Valley. Please follow me below the fold to find out how the Bay can get its act together.
I-80 in the East Bay carries 300,000 cars/day
and is looking more and more like SoCal sprawl.
Now I think is a good time to explain that not everything about Bay Area transit is irreparably messed up. Like many Bay Areans, I too boast to outsiders about the "wonderful" transit options we have in the Bay. And its true, much of it is actually quite efficient, clean, and invaluable to the region's transit needs. Just look at the havoc the recent
BART strike wreaked on Bay Area commute needs to see how important it is to the Bay's regional infrastructure. BART carries almost half a million passengers daily between its four service counties, making it the fifth-largest metro system in the United States. And it does that despite having only one tunnel under the city of San Francisco.
Caltrain carries almost 50,000 riders a day, making it the largest commuter rail system in the United States by passengers per mile (614 riders/mile) and is growing rapidly every year. That's more than the Long Island Railroad (477 riders/mile) and the New Jersey Transit Rail (296 riders/mile). During rush hour, Caltrain is standing-room only, which is something that commuter trains are not typically designed to handle. All this and Caltrain doesn't even quite make it to downtown San Francisco, where the jobs are! Clearly, Caltrain is no slacker, but Muni's 38-Geary bus carries the same amount every day! Geary Street is an example of a street that needs a subway line.
A typical crowded Muni bus in Chinatown.
What these numbers tell me is that the demand exists. People in the Bay Area
want to take public transportation. Nobody
wants to sit in the parking lot known as I-880, I-80, or US-101. But they do for many reasons. Perhaps they are just as dumbfounded by the patchwork of agencies as I was. Perhaps Caltrain or BART just doesn't quite make it to their job and they don't want to bother transferring to the slow Muni for the
last mile. But even with all these downfalls, record numbers of Bay Area residents are taking public transit to work. Because demand exists. The Bay Area needs
need to capitalize on this before it's too late. Here's how we do it:
Phase I
The first thing a struggling patchwork transit system needs to do is to negotiate and adopt a widely used universal fare card. This makes transferring less of a hassle and payment go quicker and smoother. The good news is, the Bay Area already has one with the name of "Clipper Card". I don't know who came up with that ugly branding, but given the uncooperative nature of Bay Area transit agencies, its a wonder this thing was even adopted at all. Even though it only covers the eight largest agencies (leaving out Marin Transit and County Connection) I'd be remiss if I don't give credit where credit is due.
Transit-oriented development like in Arlington focus
on concentrating high-density development within a
quarter mile of a transit station.
Now is also a good time to call on cities to encourage high-density zoning measures centered around transit stations. Transit villages like BART's Fruitvale Station are an excellent way to encourage new ridership and fixes the "last-mile problem" by bringing potential riders and destinations closer to the stations. San Jose, in particular, needs to stop its sprawl and focus development on strategic areas like the new Levi's Stadium and Downtown, or BART's Silicon Valley extension will never have enough density to justify the cost of tunneling a subway. Transit-oriented development works. The Bay Area needs to take advantage of that.
Phase II
Unfortunately, the good news ends there. The next important thing is a system of fare transfers. Obviously, transfers within an agency are free, but system transfers either require payment of the full fare price again, a measly discount (like $0.25 in the case of BART-AC Transit), or the purchase of a monthly pass (in the case of Caltrain-VTA). You can see why people may be loathe to do that. If I had to travel from Mountain View to Menlo Park via El Camino Real (a straight shot), but had to transfer bus agencies midway at Palo Alto, I think I might just drive. Riding transit in the Bay Area is already pretty expensive: having to pay double that just because of an agency transfer is ridiculous.
VTA is expecting a deluge of riders as a
result of the BART extension.
The other thing the Bay Area needs is truly "timed" transfers. Agencies time transfers well within their own organization, but inter-organization "timed transfers" are a mess. Take my previous example at the Millbrae Intermodal Station. BART southbound to Caltrain southbound transfers there rarely go off without a hitch.
In order for these two elements to come together, Bay Area agencies need to work together. That is what makes this the most difficult phase; Bay Area transit agencies seemingly loathe to work together unless it is in their best interest. And even then, only sometimes. What we need is an umbrella agency to get everyone to play nice. The added bonus to this is a common brand for the entire region, thus reducing the confusion caused by too many agencies and names. (San Francisco sees over six transit agencies operating within its city limits.)
Phase III
I may have lied when I said that Phase II was going to be the most difficult. If somehow, miraculously, Bay Area transit agencies agree on a common branding and a common agency to rule over all of them, the problem of money still exists. Regional transit infrastructure is ancient. Over 2/3 of BART cars have been running since the system opened in 1972. That makes it the oldest fleet in the country. Caltrain is still running old and slow diesel-electric locomotives, and has been vying for money to fully electrify and modernize its route for decades. Even if San Francisco calls itself a "transit-first city", it still needs money to complete these necessary infrastructure upgrades. And our federal government hasn't been very transit-friendly as of late, in terms of funding. Unfortunately, the Bay Area and California is on its own.
VTA
VTA light rail hasn't much extended its routes since it opened in the 70s. Despite this, VTA has taken some positive steps in establishing express trains and proposed Bus Rapid Transit lanes through the congested El Camino corridor and Downtown San Jose. They should be commended for this progress. Even with the parallel Caltrain route, the El Camino corridor accounts for 20% of VTA's total system ridership, and an astonishing 50% of SamTrans' total ridership.
A typical standing-room only BART train.
San Francisco Transbay Center
The new San Francisco Transbay Center, dubbed the "Grand Central of the West", has recently found itself in a $300 million
hole. In order to fill it up, leaders in the city have decided to divert money from the Caltrain DTX (downtown extension project) into the Transbay Center train box, on top of the switch from glass to
perforated aluminum and the city's recent discovery that the contract did not outline who was on the hook to pay for the station's
rooftop park maintenance. I really hope city planners can scrape enough money to complete that last mile of tunnel. Without Caltrain, the Transbay Center is basically a billion-dollar bus station with retail.
BART
45% of all rides on BART go through the Transbay Tube, an underwater tunnel that takes trains between downtown San Francisco and downtown Oakland. The tube is currently running at capacity. In 1989 after the Loma Prieta Earthquake caused a span of the Bay Bridge to collapse, the tube was the only method of travel between the two cities, except for driving all the way around the bay. In light of the possibility of an emergency closure of the Bay Bridge, it is absolutely critical that we maintain BART as a lifeline. And that means building a second Transbay Tube. But there are unfortunately no updates on that front. The Dumbarton Rail Bridge is another option. The right-of-way between the Redwood City Caltrain Station and the Fremont Amtrak station via the Rail Bridge still exists. The tracks need refurbishing and the bridge needs to be rebuilt, but expensive land acquisition should not be an issue.
The BART-Silicon Valley extension is another added plus. For once, I am glad that the federal government stepped in and stopped VTA (BART's governing partner in the Santa Clara County portion of the extension) from its ambitious plan to complete the Fremont to Santa Clara line in one phase. Such an attempt would have likely resulted in a financial disaster. Instead, the current plan will see the southward expansion end in San Jose's Berryessa neighborhood, though I would have preferred to see it end in Alum Rock. Nonetheless, this project is already well under-construction and will do wonders to improve eastern Silicon Valley's lack of adequate rail transit. I'm hoping that the city of Milpitas will go ahead and follow it's "Transit Area Specific Plan" and encourage high-density development around its new station. San Jose needs to hurry more dense development zones along Santa Clara Ave before any subway under the street would be a sound investment.
Commuters at the Mountain View Caltrain
waiting to board.
Caltrain
Caltrain desperately needs to be electrified. The ridership numbers show a commuter rail system that is overcrowded and overburdened. Much of Caltrain's route is through dense neighborhoods with high demand for train travel. With faster stop and go times, Caltrain could run more trains during rush hour and accommodate more people. It's current non-rush hour/weekend frequency rate of one train per hour is pitiful. The corridor needs grade-separation as well. Several of its crossings are accident-prone, and it seems to me a no-brainer to get people and cars away from the tracks. These infrastructure projects have been a pipe dream for decades until parts of the High Speed Rail funds were allocated for Caltrain corridor improvements. Hopefully by the end of this decade, the corridor will be fully grade-separated and electrified.
Muni
Muni also needs infrastructure improvements. It badly needs to replace its aging bus fleet. It also needs to establish right-of-ways for its at-grade light rail lines. If you've got a train running at surface grade, sharing the roads with cars, then drivers will not hesitate to treat the train like another car in the crowded streets. That is, jutting in front of the train or otherwise blocking its path. This explains Muni's dismal 8.1 mph average speed, because outside of its few tunnels, Muni trains are sharing the road with an ever more congested surface grid. Building right-of-ways separate from traffic requires concrete, paint, land, and construction crews. That, of course, also requires money.
A full Muni Metro train during rush hour.
Phase III summary
With the exception of the Central Subway, much of the Bay's new projects are extensions of lines into the far-flung exurbs. In my opinion, this is the wrong way to go. We need more capacity in the urban core. That BART only has one line running through San Francisco is unacceptable. Even though Caltrain instituted the amazing "Baby Bullet" trains, it still does not have the technology to offer greater service frequency and speed that its corridor desperately needs. What we need to do is to take money that we are spending on stupid endeavors like the Oakland Airport "people-mover" and
focus on the core. The Bay's exurbs are not experiencing a population boom, like in Atlanta. The Bay's economic and population growth is coming directly from the large cities and inner suburbs. That's where we must focus our transit projects.
Phase IV
This is probably the most ambitious phase, but also the most needed. The Bay Area does not need eighteen agencies. It needs one unified agency to handle all the public transit needs. (Adding a few regional agencies to compliment coverage in more rural areas is acceptable.) Right now, each operator has its own zone, roughly defined by county borders. Moving between these operating zones can sometimes be a huge hassle. We need to get rid of that bureaucratic red tape. From a marketing and customer service standpoint, every transit station should have the same exact same system map, and every train and bus should display the same logo. There should be a universal payment card, and a streamlined fare calculator. But while common brand and common transit map will go a long way in the public relations department, a common agency is ultimately what is needed in order to get every detail and technicality flowing smoothly, down to the last timed transfer.
New York has the MTA and the Port Authority. Washington and Los Angeles have the Metro. Chicago has the CTA. Atlanta has MARTA. The examples I give are not perfect. They all have their own problems (Los Angeles has geography and MARTA has race politics), and they all have varying levels of decentralization (but none even close to the Bay Area's level of decentralization). Public transportation is not an industry where competition breeds quality. It is a public need that should and must be provided by a central authority.
The Bay must do better on unification and cooperation if we are to have a world-class transit system. We have six to eight major agencies quabbling for funds and playing nice only when it suits them, not the public. And then we have a few dozen smaller agencies adding to the confusion. We can construct all the infrastructure improvements imaginable and completely eliminate the "last mile problem" with all sorts of solutions. But if we can't make transit here a smooth, easy, and pleasant experience (in a way that only a fairly unified and cooperative system can), then nothing will make Bay Area transit the world-class transit system it deserves to be. The Bay Area is California's fastest growing population center and will add almost 2 million new residents by 2060. Our transit network is already clearly bursting at the seams. Now is a critical time. Are we going to get our act together and improve our infrastructure to accommodate the growing population? Or are we going to drag our feet, until it's too late?