Gridlock seen if Caltrain closes
When Caltrain officials said Tuesday that they may have to shut the rail line down after two San Francisco supervisors scuttled a tax measure to save it, transit activists predicted disaster.
Traffic would pile up on Highway 101. More tech workers would rely on corporate shuttles or private cars when their offices reopened. And if the trains kept running with few passengers, Muni and Valley Transportation Authority would be on the hook to fund them.
“When we return to normal
we’re going to see highways flooded with cars, an increase in greenhouse gases and a decrease in mental health,” said Caltrain board Director Charles Stone, describing the social consequences of so many people stuck in automobiles.
The fight erupted as the Peninsula railroad faced financial ruin, having lost 95% of its riders when COVID19 engulfed the region in March. Suddenly, the transit system that relied on fares for 70% of its operating costs was losing $9 million a month. These financial wounds came at what should have been a bright moment in Caltrain’s 157year history: The railroad is kneedeep in a $2 billion project to swap its diesel locomotives for electric cars, and top staff laid out a “longrange” vision last year to triple the number of riders it serves, from 65,000 a day to 180,000.
Without a robust rail system, future urban development along El Camino Real and in the South Bay would also be at risk, Stone said. It’s unclear what Caltrain ceasing operation would mean for Google’s planned megaproject near San Jose Diridon Station, which aims to transform 60 acres into an office campus, a hotel, parks, shops and up to 5,000 homes.
“That Grand Boulevard vision that we all want, with increased housing density along the transit lines, needs to have transit in order to work,” Stone said. He is also a Belmont city councilman who champions infrastructure to make cities more walkable and bikeable and reverse decades of suburban sprawl on the Peninsula.
So the region’s future hangs in the balance as Caltrain’s board spars over parochial issues of leadership. San Francisco Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Shamann Walton have pushed for months to separate Caltrain from the San Mateo County Transit District, which manages and operates the rail system for a threecounty Joint Powers Board. Ultimately, they want San Francisco to have more power.
What began as a conflict about Caltrain’s governance became an ideological battle when it spilled over to Twitter on Tuesday night.
Transit activists accused the San Francisco supervisors of holding the rail system hostage to make a point about local control and of limiting the city’s Transit First credo to apply only within its borders.
But the 1⁄8cent sales tax measure also drew opposition. Some residents of San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties resent paying for a system that mostly serves upperincome riders. Several people tweeted that the agency should instead raise fares, which range from $3.20 to $15 for a oneway ticket, depending on the distance traveled.
Peskin echoed those sentiments during a Zoom news conference on Wednesday, in which he and Walton doubled down on their decision to reject the sales tax.
“Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation,” the supervisor contended, meaning they hit lowincome people harder than wealthier residents. “This is a railroad that, while it is an extremely valuable public transportation resource, serves a very affluent clientele.”
In an interview later, Peskin pitched an alternate idea: Why not impose a regional tax on “the wealthiest people in society who are more likely to use the railroad?”
Such arguments rankled Adina Levin, executive director of the grassroots advocacy group Friends of Caltrain.
“This is a circular argument,” Levin said. “Caltrain does not have stable funding, and so it’s raised fares. And that means the riders are higher income.” She pointed out that a share of the projected $100 millionayear revenue from the sales tax was supposed to fund discounts for lowincome riders.
Levin moved to Menlo Park in 2006 to be close to a Caltrain station. She rides the trains several times a week to get to meetings in San Francisco and the South Bay or connect to BART and go to the East Bay. She had hoped the ballot measure would enable frequent, allday service for casual trips, so Caltrain could be more than a commuter rail.
If service were shut down, riders who could have zipped up the Peninsula in 30 minutes will instead spend an hour and a half on the bus, Levin warned.
To others, that idea didn’t seem too bad. Chad Hedstrom, who lives near the San Francisco station, frowned at the sales tax proposal, and said he favors suspending the trains and substituting buses until Caltrain is fully electrified. Buses are cheaper and make less noise, Hedstrom said, noting that quieter vehicles would improve the quality of life in the Mission Bay neighborhood, where trains blast their horns at all hours of the day.
As advocates gritted their teeth, Walton, who sits on Caltrain’s board, remained calm. He suggested that fellow board members may be bluffing when they portend a full suspension of service.
“I ... don’t believe the railroad will go dark if this tax does not make it to the ballot,” he said during the news conference Wednesday. Walton said he’s had conversations with state leaders about the possibility of a special tax measure in the coming years. Alternatively, Caltrain could generate money by selling, leasing or building housing on land that the agency owns, Walton said. That could take many years, and Caltrain has just two sites that could accommodate bigger developments.
And if it manages to lure riders back by the end of the year, it could be eligible for stimulus funding.
None of those options seemed immediately viable to San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine, who chairs the Caltrain Board of Directors. More likely, he said, Caltrain’s next step will be to ask the transportation agencies in San Francisco and Santa Clara to kick in additional funding for the railroad.
San Francisco, which is suffering its own budget crisis, currently pays $15.6 million a year for Caltrain’s capital and operating expenses — an obligation that would have gone away if the sales tax had passed.
Yet Peskin said he and his colleagues are evaluating a number of alternatives, including a larger contribution from Muni, a transit system already under strain. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is bracing for $568 million in revenue losses over four years.
That didn’t gall the supervisor.
“Everything is on the table,” he said.