SANFRANCISCO

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA

MARIN

SONOMA NAPA SOLANO

SAN MATEO

SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ

1

2G

2A

3A

5A

4A 4B4C

3C

2D

3D 4D

5C6C

5B6A

3G

4H

5H

6G

7G

6F

5F

5G

4G

4F

3E

4E

5E

SanFrancisco

Berk-eley

Rich-mond

SanRafael

Novato

Petaluma

Sonoma Napa

Vallejo

Suisun City

Fairfield

Vacaville

RioVista

Calistoga

Santa Rosa

Cloverdale

Sausalito

Pinole

Oakland

SanLeandro

Danville

Walnut Creek

ConcordBay Point

Antioch

San Ramon

Hayward

UnionCity

Fremont

Pleasanton

Dublin

DalyCity

SanMateo

Pacifica

Half Moon Bay

Pescadero

Scott Creek

RedwoodCity

MenloPark

PaloAlto

MountainView

SantaClara

SanJose

Milpitas

Edenvale

Sunnyvale

Cupertino

Los Gatos

Santa Cruz

Watsonville

Morgan Hill

GilroyLocal

Rapid

In Zones 5H, 6G, 7G

Local

Rapid

In Zones 2G, 3G, 4H

Local

Rapid

Streetcar

In Zones 4G, 5G, 5F, 6F

Local

In Zone 5E

Shuttle

Local

Local

Local

Shuttle

RapidIn Zones 3C, 2D, 3E, 4F

Local

Local

In Zones 3D, 4D, 4E

Local

Rapid

Streetcar

In Zone 1

Express

Metro

Rail

bay

bay

bay

Regional Service

Local

In Zones 2A, 3A

Local

LocalSonomaCountyTransit

Local

Local

In Zones 4A, 5A, 6A

In Zones 4C, 5C, 6C

Local

Local

Local

LocalIn Zones 4B, 5B

Status Quo Potential Consolidation Scenario

Practice Area Status Quo Consolidation Scenario Mitigation of Concerns

Organization & Governance

•Independent, weakly-coordinated agencies

•MTC has responsibility, little authority•High administrative costs

•Regional transit authority (RTA) oversees all regional transit policies and decisions

•Single regional operator (RTO) for all re-gional rail, bus and ferry routes

•Local operators operate service with-in their jurisdictions

•Local decisions driven by local oper-ators

Branding •Wholly independent branding •Few non-operator branding efforts

•Clear,unifiedBayAreabrandingforalltransit operators, authorities, agencies

•Co-branding of regional brand with individual operator brands

Information for Users

•Littleregionalinfoprovidedinfield•No authoritative information source

•Unifiedinfoonvehicles,atstations•Combined open data feeds

•Nurture culture of openness•Legislation enforces access to info

Fare Structure •Non-uniform, confusing fare and trans-fer policies

•Unifiedzone-basedfarestructure•Ex:$2within1zone;$1/ea.add’lzone

•Guarantee revenue neutrality for each local agency

Schedules •Limited coordination •RTA coordinates schedules•Single software provider for scheduling

•RTAweighscostsandbenefits•RTA covers cost of software transition

Infrastructure •Poor coordination•Redundant or mismatched investments

•RTA coordinates all investments •Local operators or RTA can initiate infrastructure improvements

Procurement &Maintenance

•Fleets procured independently•Maintenance facilities not shared

•Joint procurement; shared facilities•Common vehicle types for all operators •RTA ensures all operator needs met

Funding •Not linked to performance measures•Poor incentives for agencies to innovate

•RTA controls regional funding, allocates based on performance

•Local operators control local funding•Legislation provides regional funding

In our scenario, RTA would also coordinate planning, research, data collection, data sharing, special event management & emergency preparedness.

i

$

i

$

i

$

i

$

i

$

i

$

i

$

i

$

Consolidation of Bay Area Transit AgenciesDan Howard and Teo Wickland, UC Berkeley — City Planning 217 / Civil Engineering 250

AbstractThe San Francisco Bay Area transit system is anything but a single system. Twenty-seven

transit operators provide service in the area. The discontinuity between agencies contrib-utes to high cost, poor perceptions of service quality, and redundancy in the transit system.

We investigated the role of consolidating certain functions of these agencies in saving transit dollars, improving the passenger experience, and providing a more coherent re-gional identify for the transit system. To that end, we conducted a review of literature, fo-cusing on current issues facing transit, historical attempts at consolidation in the Bay Area, comparative examples, and identifying key elements of a consolidated system. We then interviewedtransitofficialsfromthesevenmajorBayAreatransitagenciesandMTCinan effort to understand the environment in which consolidation attempts would have to be made.

WeconcludethataunifiedfarestructureandclearBayAreabrandingmayimproveperceptions of service quality in the entire system; that regional bus and rail service could be combined into one agency to improve service quality and reduce capital and operating expenses; and that agencies should attempt to consolidate their procurement, operations and maintenance efforts to potentially eliminate redundancy and reduce cost.

However, support for many aspects of consolidation appears to be limited among area transit agencies. Respondents were concerned about loss of local control in governance andfunding;somefearedapotentiallossoflegitimacyinthepublic’sview.Manyrespon-dentsalsojustifiedtheiroppositiontoconsolidationbasedoncurrentusagepatterns,rath-er than potential usage patterns in a consolidated scenario. For example, schedule coordi-nation was sometimes described as fruitless because few riders currently transfer between systems, despite the possibility that transfers may be depressed precisely because sched-ules are uncoordinated.