A bill filed yesterday for a 1/8 cent sales tax could fix Caltrain’s chronic budget problems caused by the fact that Caltrain’s annual public funding has been voluntary on the part of the 3 county partners in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco.
The bill doesn’t say yet when the tax would go on the ballot. San Francisco and San Mateo counties are also considering transportation sales taxes for the fall of 2018, and there are questions about whether local ballot measures and a dedicated Caltrain tax would complement or interfere with each other. Local polling would be needed to answer those questions.
To put the sales tax on the ballot, it would need to be approved by 2/3 of the Caltrain board, and by the Supervisors of all three Counties, and then the measure would need to be approved by 2/3 of the voters in all three counties.
To appeal to voters, it would be helpful to know whether the bill would pay for better Caltrain service. Â The prospect of better service would be more attractive to taxpayers than getting regional agencies to stop arguing about their annual bills.
Also, it would be valuable for Caltrain to plan and set expectations for how this fits into a roadmap to provide major increases in capacity and improvements in service over time.  An 1/8 cent sales tax will help cover annual operating and maintenance costs, but additional investments will be needed to serve (for example) Diridon Station when Google moves in 20,000 or so workers.
Some community members have also been asking why the proposal to provide dedicated funding for Caltrain is presented as a sales tax, which is regressive, rather than a business tax. Some local cities, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, have been discussing business taxes to help pay for transportation infrastructure, but those measures have been proposed more for local projects, and none of them is moving forward as far as we know.
And some stakeholders ask whether Caltrain, which already gets 60% percent of its revenue from riders, should be able to financially break even, paying for its service and maintenance from rider revenue, especially since Caltrain serves riders who are high-income on average.
But when Caltrain raised fares most recently, ridership dipped.  And solid data from Palo Alto downtown Transportation Management Association shows that less than 30% of workers at larger tech companies drive (many taking Caltrain), while 80% of low-income service workers drive (though many would prefer to use Caltrain if they could afford it).  The TMA has a successful pilot with 100 low-income workers using TMA-provided transit passes, mostly Caltrain, validating the unmet demand.
Given the overall benefits of getting more cars off the road; providing lower-stress, sustainable transportation options to commuters including low-income workers; and supporting lower car use in densifying areas, it’s not clear whether running Caltrain at to break even would be the best outcome for the region. Â Caltrain’s business planning process will be an important opportunity to gather data and discuss these questions.
The bill was filed by Senator Hill along with Wiener, Beall, and Wieckowski, and with Assembly co-authors Chiu, Kalra, Mullin,  Stone and Ting – representatives of all 3 Caltrain counties.  The bill is backed by business groups including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and SAMCEDA, the San Mateo County Economic Development Association.
Caltrain’s funding instability bit riders and commuters again this budget year, when VTA’s budget challenges contributed to a risky proposed fare increase and maintenance cutbacks.
It will be a major win for the Peninsula Corridor to end the untenable, ridiculous situation where the backbone transit service of a global economic powerhouse faces maintenance cuts and risky fare decisions or service cuts, because in any given year a partner can choose to pay $5 million less of its annual bill.
This is an important step forward – what do you think?
To do all the heavy lifting of getting this law passed, and then getting 2/3 of all voters voting on it to vote yes, it would be tragic if 1/8-cent was only enough to maintain Caltrain’s abysmally poor off-peak, night and weekend “service.”
So this effort should not aim so low as to maintain the poor status quo. In order to be worthwhile, and probably in order to generate the necessary 2/3 voter support, the value proposition must include sufficient funding for robust transit-level minimum service frequencies (headways), comparable to BART or light rail, of no less than a train every 20 minutes (3 trains per hour per direction) from early morning until late into the night (midnight or later).
I just don’t understand the arrogance that a county transit agency would spend less on its people just because part of their commute is on a train.
Personally, I wish the bill would mandate that VTA, MTA and SamTrans pay their share for their residents to use Caltrain. Otherwise, this tax bill is simply a tax on everyone to give VTA, Samtrans and Muni more money.
What happens with the current JPB partner contributions under this bill?
Would the partners say: “now that there is a dedicated sales tax, we no longer have to contribute agency funds to Caltrain.”
The bill needs to ensure that the partners continue to provide some funding to Caltrain.
Perhaps a better version of the bill would be to enforce a certain level on contributions to Caltrain. This would maintain service and keep taxes the same. With this bill, we’ll pay more taxes for same service, just so transit agencies can sleep at night.
My question is the same as Jeff Carter’s below: “What happens with the current JPB partner contributions under this bill?” I would like to see an estimate of the revenue that the sales tax would yield, and how that compares with the 3-member contributions.
In any case, I think it’s great that this legislation has been introduced! Thank you, Sens. Hill, Wiener, Beall, and Wieckowski, and Assembly co-authors Chiu, Kalra, Mullin, Stone and Ting.
As the SJMN article I linked to on this “Friends of Caltrain” Facebook group posting, the 1/-8-cent sales tax is expected to raise about $100m annually for Caltrain.
Looking at the mercury news article http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/26/caltrain-sales-tax-proposal-draws-huge-voter-support-poll/ it’s really unclear what that sales tax would be for. This blog mentions providing stable operational funding, the article (with quotes from business groups and SPUR) seems to indicate it’d be for capital improvements (longer platform, grade separation….) -which we just approved a VTA sales tax for-. Maybe that confusion is part of the ballot polling game….but it might come a point where voters will tire of these games.
[…] electrification is moving forward; and there’s a new proposal on the table for dedicated Caltrain funding. Caltrain is working on a business plan that could shape the future of the service.   Which will […]
In Eastern Asia, commuter rail with Caltrain (SJ-SF) level of ridership density usually generate profit. They are 100% EMU, single conductor and operate under PTC system.
In FY2016, Caltrain’s farebox recovery is 74%. What can we expect after Electrification?
I believe VTA/SamTrans/Muni must pay the the difference between Go pass and Monthly pass. This is county’s debt to Caltrian, not subsidiary.
All train should be operated by single conductor. Ticker enforcement should be done by separate inspector either on board or at platform.
Ticket inspection of crowded peak train is now almost impossible. If second or third conductor are needed for bike, bike rider should pay for the cost.