Caltrain explores fare hikes

Here we have yet another article on increasing revenues but not one word on Caltrain becoming more efficient or fiscally responsible. Then we have Caltrain staff saying they performed equity analysis comparisons to ensure no undue burden on low-income and minority groups? In a way that’s only partially true. Because if you raise fares, you’ll ensure undue burden on ALL groups, not only low-income and minority groups. But I’m sure that’s not what they’re trying to convey.

Meanwhile will a reduction in the Go Pass price make a difference? Seems to me that companies and other institutions may be able to provide their own (or shared) shuttle buses at lower cost since shuttle buses are more nimble. Perhaps we can get Caltrain staff on that comparison. Or on any methods for Caltrain to become efficient or fiscally responsible. Maybe the first order of business is to axe Caltrain staff wasting time on an equity analysis comparison…

The San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans/Caltrain) is in charge of SamTrans bus service, Caltrain, 101 express lanes, and the San Mateo County Transit Authority decides how much money goes where. Currently the SMCTA and Caltrain Board includes people like Jeff Gee, Ray Mueller, Emily Beach, Noelia Corzo, Rico Medina, Carlos Romero, etc. These leaders could decide to push ped/bike and public transit to the forefront, they could start by increasing safety and customer service, but for whatever reason (climate denial, personal bias, corporate interest) they never do.

There is no need for these price increases, the money is there, the Board of Directors at SamTrans and SMCTA just have a way of funneling that money towards their favorite pet projects - and those are cars.

There is a certain pattern here:

Step 1: ask the tax payer for more money so SMCTA can prioritize public and active transit better

Step 2: waste public transit money on things like $80M experimental trains and $150M SamTrans headquarters.

Step 3: waste bicycle funds on projects called 'traffic calming', 'fake bicycle boulevards', 'not-so-slow slow streets'.

Step 4: waste public transit funds on projects called 'grade separation', these are car projects attacking Caltrain's ridership.

Step 5: suppress cycling and public transit by neglecting infrastructure and customer service. Price gouging would fall into this category.

Step 6: by keeping bike and transit mode shares down, more money can go for car projects like the 101 express lanes and 101 interchanges.

Step 7: Of course all these projects increase congestion even more and to promise congestion relief (for ca. 80 years now) they will ask for more taxes to pay for 'better public transit' and 'safe bicycle infrastructure' - which never comes.

Questions people need to start asking:

- Why does every city in America have bus shelters except SamTrans's cities?

- Why do other cities and counties add bike lanes but San Mateo is removing them?

- Why don't all cars have to pay for using SR-101, but all people have to pay for using Caltrain?

- Why attack Caltrain's ridership by widening SR-101 and giving more car people a free ride?

- Why invest into South Bay Ferry Service that is directly competing against CalTrain and SamTrans?

The fare increase is supposed to create $1.1M per year in revenue. Not buying a new headquarters would safe $150M. Not buying an experimental train would have saved $400M. That is 400 years without a rate hike.

The United States Postal Service loses about $1.1 billion per quarter, consequently every three months the tax payers bail them out when simply raising the cost to mail a letter or package could and would make the USPS break even. The same can be said about CalTrain, they can raise the fares, cut back on service, cut salaries or lay off workers if necessary. The definition of insanity is allowing The People's government to run a business.