The
last time I wrote about Bay Area public transportation, my final conclusion was that the region needed to consolidate all of its disparate operators into a single agency, much like the MTA in New York or New Jersey Transit in the entire state. I have since significantly revised my stance on this subject, but before I get into that, I want to first direct you to an interesting statistic compiled by the MTC, the Bay Area’s metropolitan planning organization:
The Bay Area is the only metro area in the country without a primary transit operator.
So even in America’s famous preference for local and decentralized government, the Bay Area stands outs. There is no primary transit operator here who has managed to capture a majority of the region’s transit riders. There is only a hopelessly disjointed patchwork of more than two-dozen local agencies (
click here for map) an arrangement that is failing to provide a seamless transit service that would be expected of a world-class region. Back in 2009, the MTC noted this problem in its
Annual Report:
“We have multiple layers of decision-making and service delivery -- 28 separate transit agencies, each with its own board, staff and operating team, that confound efforts to deliver a regional system passengers can understand and effectively navigate, and that can keep pace with changes in demand. And at times we … have made decisions to invest in system expansion when reinvesting in the existing system might have been the wiser choice.”
And they have since failed to do anything meaningful about it. The status quo is supported by band-aid fixes and duct tape and disappoints on multiple fronts, but these three are the most significant:
First of all, there is no standardized visual guideline that determines what station signage, vehicle design, nomenclature, and maps look like. Each agency has different names for the same thing (e.g. Limited, Rapid), uncoordinated schedules, dissimilar visual guidelines (colors, fonts, logos), and most perplexing of all, there is a procession of maps of all shapes, sizes, and colors that confound earnest attempts from tourists and locals alike to navigate the system. Just designing and displaying a unified map that realistically displays every route and different levels of service would go a long way to facilitate wayfinding.
The MTC tried to create a regional map system, but resulted in only exacerbating the problem by adding to the patchwork.
Secondly, there is no simple way to pay if taking a multi-operator trip. Because operator zones tend to adhere to city and county lines, which were arbitrarily drawn centuries ago without respecting current commute patterns, multi-operator trips are almost always a necessity. The Clipper card (a smart card payment technology accepted by most large transit operators here) has helped on this front, but many barriers still remain. There is a financial penalty for transferring between systems (essentially paying two or more times for one trip), and a severe limitation on the Clipper card when it comes to tagging off one system and onto another. All of this is coupled with an existing environment where each of the two dozen agencies independently set their own fare structure, fare zones, youth and elderly discounts, and daily and monthly passes.
Thirdly, completing a multi-operator trip is made more aggravating by the fact that the stations themselves are usually designed in a way that makes it difficult to complete transfers. The image above is a diagram of the Market Street subway transfer, but examples persist in any transit hub where two or more operators meet. Unintuitive and unnecessarily complex routes need to be navigated in order to complete the transfer. To make matters worse, timed transfers are virtually non-existent. I cannot tell you how many times I jump off of a train or bus just in time to see my transfer (operated by another agency) pull out of the station.
I have only scratched the surface in describing to you in just a few paragraphs the chaos inherent in the experience of riding this fragmented system, but this is discussed in greater detail in my previous diary, as well as by others with much more experience than I do in these matters (here, here, here, and even the Washington Post and the New York Times).
Please continue reading for my proposal on how to fix this little regional dilemma.
As I mentioned earlier, I had previously supported a full merger of all two-dozen agencies in an effort to facilitate a more customer friendly approach to regional transportation. I acknowledged that entrenched political provincialism, along with each agency's separate boards, funding sources, and union contracts would make such a merger difficult if not impossible. But I still supported such a move. after all, no one in their right state-of-mind would design the mess that is Bay Area transit today from scratch. But since I wrote the last diary and began to think about it a little more, I started to notice a few, perhaps unintended, benefits that arose from our hopelessly fragmented system:
First is resilience. Much like how diversity in the gene pool can protect a species from catastrophic change events or disease, the diversity of transit options in the Bay Area ensures that if any one piece unexpectedly stops working, the others are there to pick up the slack. The BART strike two years ago that shut down the critical transbay rail link between San Francisco and Oakland is a good example. As it stood, the BART shutdown was a commuting disaster, but ferries and other operators were able to help pick up the slack. On the other hand, a fully merged entity responsible for all regional transit modes facing that strike would have had to shut down all transit operations -- a true catastrophe.
Secondly, smaller operators have the benefit of increased local determination. Instead of some planner sitting in a downtown office fifty miles away drawing your bus routes, the community who rides the buses get to decide where the buses go. Additionally, that planner fifty miles away will not only have a bias towards their own area, but will also have a poorer understanding of the local commuting patterns than locals would have. As Jarrett Walker of Human Transit observed of Los Angeles:
“Everyone hated the regional agency, but loved their city ones...you could get your city's transit manager on the phone, but not the regional one. Small city governments can fix a bus route and put up a new bus shelter in the time it would take the regional agency to organize the right series of meetings. Again, nobody's at fault there; these are natural consequences of smallness and bigness -- in corporations as well as in governments.”
These are some real benefits of having a localized transit operator determine the nitty gritty details of where the routes should go, the frequency of the routes, location of bus shelters, and such. And smaller agencies are naturally more flexible in responding to citizen complaints and suggestions.
The harmonious relationship between Caltrain and the Stanford Marguerite shuttle is a shining example of what friendly and cooperative neighbors can individually accomplish while working together. The Palo Alto Transit Center is currently Caltrain’s second highest ridership station, after San Francisco’s flagship 4th and King station. Its ridership surpasses Mountain View’s, Redwood City’s, Millbrae’s (and its treasured BART transfer), and the combined ridership of both of San Mateo’s stations. It nearly doubles the ridership at San Jose, the largest city in the Bay Area, and its flagship Diridon station in downtown. Census data on the Caltrain route does reveal a healthy number of jobs near the station, but nothing special enough to warrant such robust ridership compared to other stations. I bet that Stanford University’s employee transit passes and free shuttles timed perfectly to arriving and departing trains play a huge role in Palo Alto’s surging ridership. Think about what could be accomplished if large agencies -- BART and MUNI large -- worked together like this!
As it stands now, the drawbacks I mentioned in the beginning of this diary far outweigh any benefit derived from the current arrangement. But after reading the "Seamless Transit" report written by the regional urban think tank SPUR, I became certain that there is an easier solution than a politically messy merger that could burn bridges and destroy the relationships and trust needed for what comes after, while still retaining all of these nice advantages I listed above.
Imagine if the Bay Area gave a single organization, like the MTC, additional powers and the ability to commission a regional transit map, negotiate a uniform fare structure, and implement timed transfers, while still leaving much of the day-to-day operations and local decisions to the discretion of each individual operator? A strong coordinating agency working to make several transit operators look like one in the eyes of the rider isn’t unheard of -- see Barcelona or Hong Kong -- and I believe would be a politically tenable compromise.
The role of the coordinating agency would be limited, and each individual operator would relinquish minimal amounts of power, but the results could be dramatic: immediate improvements in public perception and corresponding ridership increases. This in turn reduces vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions. How would such a plan work? Let me explain in four simple steps:
Step I: Create a Strong Coordinating Agency
I’ve already somewhat gotten into this. Give someone, like the MTC (I will use it as the example from now on), the power to operate as a kind of overseer or umbrella organization, to make regional decisions and implement reforms beyond its current capabilities. I’m thinking of big picture things such as mandating design guidelines, unified transit maps, and standard fare formulas. Individual agencies can continue to determine their own routes, hire and pay their own employees, and collect their own revenue.
Step II: Make Transit Easy to Navigate
This MTC map is cluttered and prioritizes displaying
operator zones rather than routes and stations.
This is all about design. The MTC must commission a clear and coherent branding strategy that will apply to all agencies. There are four important graphical cues that are inherent in all transit operations that would help make it clear to riders that they are riding the Bay Area transit system: train station signage (font and color), bus stop signage (font and color), nomenclature for common terms (express train, baby bullet, bus rapid, etc), and most importantly, the design of the map. So on the extreme side, this could include replacing each operators with a standard logo. But ultimately, this would just mean one distinctive design guideline, such as matching fonts and color palette, so that when someone sees a bus stop or train station anywhere in the Bay Area, they will recognize it as the Bay Area transit station. Most importantly, this will feature a fully integrated map.
In actuality, I envision a tiered system of maps. The first is a single rail map that show all rail routes in the Bay Area (such as this impressive unofficial map), followed by two zoomed in regional maps for San Francisco and Santa Clara county to give detail to their respective light rail systems, and finally a series of local and detailed maps that depict all the bus routes alongside rail, with respective weights and distinctive colors given to different levels and types of service. A large station like the Transbay Center would likely display all three of these maps, while a small bus shelter would just display the relevant local bus map, and perhaps the main rail map.
The most important thing about this map is that it must not favor one operator over another, as the current operator-centric maps do (e.g. the Caltrain route on the BART map is a barely visible thin gray line). It must also avoid the cluttered nature and operator zone focus of the current MTC map (right), which displays zero useful information.
Additionally, the MTC must actively work with operators who share transfer stations to line up their schedules. This will be a tough endeavour, because a few minute adjustments on one route will ripple down the system, affecting the timetables of trains and buses miles away. However, for the most important transfers like BART and Caltrain at Millbrae, a MacArthur type timed transfer should be implemented. The hope is that riders will no longer step off a bus or train just in time to witness their transfer pulling away from the station.
Lastly, while we’re on the topic of Millbrae: pull out the BART tracks from SFO to Millbrae and replace it with the SFO SkyTrain. BART will still serve Millbrae via San Bruno, and Caltrain (and future high-speed rail) riders will no longer need to complete messy transfers or pay BART’s exorbitant airport surcharge just to go to the airport.
Step III: Make It Easier to Pay
Transferring between MUNI and BART in the Market Street subway is an unnecessarily long and convoluted process.
As it currently stands, each of the two-dozen operators in the Bay Area set their own individual fare structure. This means dozens of fare zones, youth discounts, flat fares, and transfers, all with their own rules and limitations. Standardizing this would likely take years of impact studies and preparation. Because my proposal does not call for a full merger, each operator would still manage their own budget. Aside from their own dedicated funding sources, a fair distribution of the revenue collected from the farebox under a standardized fare structure would have to be managed by the MTC, and would likely be an insanely difficult process to negotiate. But from a customer service standpoint, a single fare system would make it easier to ride, and help attract more riders. So this is worth kicking up some dirt over.
A unified fare proposal would task the MTC to work out a binding fare structure and mandate it for all the Bay Area agencies. This means that riders would only have to remember one flat fare to ride any bus, including inter-agency transfers, and could easily look at just one map to determine the distance-based fare for a rail trip, even if they travel between Caltrain and BART. Paying would be a seamless process, and the rider needn't even realize that they are riding on routes operated by different agencies. Currently, operators are hesitant to cooperate on this front due to fears of losing out financially (see failure of the BART plus program). Having a coordinating agency such as the MTC providing a financial guarantee under a "transport alliance" model would go a long distance to alleviate these fears.
In order to make the payment process as easy, quick, and painless as possible, Clipper card use should be prioritized for every mode of travel. For those who do not know, the Clipper card is the smart card that carries pre-paid cash and transit passes for all of the major transit operators in the Bay Area. Instead of navigating the complex prompts at a ticket machine or standing at the front of the bus while rummaging through your wallet to find exact change, the Clipper card allows riders to pay ahead of time, preferably online but also at standardized ticket machines, and then ride by simply tapping their card at card readers. Tap, and go.
Currently, Clipper mimics the existing segregated nature of transit. With the exception of pre-paid cash, which works at all Clipper agencies, each monthly pass or saved transfer credit only works for individual operators, each with their own unique rules and limitations. Additionally, there is the question of Clipper’s inane methods for transferring to different operators, as I touched on earlier in this diary. A unified fare structure would hopefully make these issues a moot point.
One of Clipper’s great advantages is on the bus system. I encourage all buses to prioritize the Clipper card by making daily and monthly passes and transfer credits workable only with a Clipper card. Cash will still be accepted for one-time riders and tourists, but regular riders should be disincentivized from paying by cash every time they ride by offering discounts through Clipper-only daily and monthly passes and not issuing paper transfers. By not issuing paper transfers, only Clipper cards will process free transfers between buses (of all agencies!).
Why? Because paying by cash increases the bus’ dwell time at each stop while the rider rummages through their wallet to find exact change. Meanwhile, Clipper users only have to take on second to tap their card against the reader. If all of the regular riders used Clipper cards, then the occasional cash user holding up the bus would not be so terrible. Tourists in San Francisco can still use the prepaid Muni passport, which is also pre-paid at the very least should be honored by Golden Gate Transit at the Golden Gate Bridge. That stop confounds tourists who are told they can’t ride the GGT bus despite their Muni passport.
Step IV: Capital Improvements and System Expansions
Drawing a unified map and standardizing the fare system won’t be easy, but it won’t cost as much money as this step will (it will just take a lot of political will). This final step is when the region will need to open its wallet and start spending money. Bay Area transit infrastructure is woefully deficient considering the region’s growing population. Already, BART, Caltrain, and Muni are bursting at the seams while running at maximum capacity.
There are some important improvements down the pipeline, many mundane and decidedly unsexy, such as Caltrain’s installation of the PTC safety system or BART’s system-wide track maintenance. Others cause inconveniences, such as Muni’s tunnel safety improvements that is shutting down its subway after 10 PM for the next six months. But there are others that get people excited about new service or new trains.
Here is a list of stuff that we can expect soon (within the next five years):
- Muni’s Central Subway to Chinatown will be completed.
- BART's "Fleet of the Future": new railcars with increased standing room and an extra door in each car to facilitate faster boarding and deboarding of trains.
- New Muni light rail vehicles that are lighter, quicker, and have less moving parts (which hopefully means it will be less prone to break down).
- Caltrain will be electrified, bringing more frequent, speedier service and level boarding platforms, while cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.
- VTA, AC Transit, and Muni (1/2) are all moving forward with bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, buses that run on dedicated lanes and won’t get stuck in traffic.
- BART will open up three new stations, and for the first time, two will be in Santa Clara county.
- SMART will open up for service in the North Bay, providing residents of Marin and Sonoma counties a rail connection to the Larkspur Ferry.
This is a list of some of the projects that are currently under consideration:
- Mission Bay track loop so the T-Third can run more frequent service within the urban core.
- BART Metro concept, essentially modernization projects and a track loop so that BART can run more frequent service within the urban core.
- Central Subway extension to Fisherman’s Wharf.
- Caltrain’s DTX, an underground rail connection from the current terminus at 4th and King to the currently under-construction Transbay Terminal.
- Dumbarton Rail, a refurbishing of existing tracks and a rail bridge to bring Caltrain from Redwood City to Union City and Fremont, while stopping by the Facebook headquarters along the way.
- BART to Silicon Valley Phase 2: extension from Berryessa under downtown San Jose to Diridon Station, ultimately terminating in Santa Clara.
- BART extensions to Livermore, and eBART to Antioch.
- Second Transbay Tube
- Ferry expansions. Additional routes (Alameda, new Warriors stadium, Redwood City) and more service on existing routes.
- California High-speed Rail will share Caltrain’s tracks from San Jose to Transbay.
Additional random projects that I personally think need to be done:
- Cut all Caltrain service south of Blossom Hill, and pawn off the Gilroy extension to either Capitol Corridor or ACE, or both. These two agencies will have the added capability of being able to run service all the way down to Salinas.
- Geary subway
- Stop the Bart Silicon Valley at San Jose. The proposed Santa Clara terminus is duplicative and a huge waste of money.
- Second Transbay Tube: continue the Caltrain DTX into a tube under the bay, and surface at Emeryville to merge with the existing Amtrak tracks. Continue service north past Richmond and into Hercules, Pinole, and potentially even Vallejo. Added bonus: Amtrak riders can switch to Caltrain at Emeryville to complete their journey to San Francisco, potentially using a ticket and code-sharing agreement such as the one between Amtrak and the San Diego Coaster.
All of these improvements, from safety improvements and train control modernization, to expansions and shiny new vehicles, are imperative to maintaining a functioning and quality transit system. The small improvements will make transit riding simpler by leaps and bounds, the large ones will herald positive attention and attract new riders. If we do nothing, the road ahead will be long. If we act now, the road ahead will be arduous, but the benefits will be innumerable. Lao Tzu said that “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”. We needed to take that first step yesterday, but we still have time.
Thank you for reading my little proposal. It is quite lengthy and oftentimes mimics or rehashes ideas that have been broached by others in the past. I wrote this diary only because I strongly believe the status quo dearly needs to be smashed into pieces, and many disparate voices have recognized this and called for a change. I just felt the need to add my little voice into the mix.
Note: If you’re interested, I made a series of graphics to accompany my discussion about the need for unified maps and design guidelines. I am no graphical designer, so these things are at a very amateur level, but there are maps, bus stop mockups, and bus mockups for anyone who is interested. The bus color matches the type of route indicated on the bus stops. Bus stops are geographically inaccurate. Click here to check them out.
Note 2: Regarding the logo at the top of the diary: "Bay Area Rides Together" was a proposed tagline by Jake Coolidge, and the idea to overlap the 'b' and 'a' with alternating lines to signify connectedness came from networkosaka.