Fare evasion quickly became a focal point during a recent Caltrain Board of Directors discussion on the projected 10-year $545 million budget deficit and a precipitous drop in ridership since 2019.
During the meeting Thursday, Feb. 1, staff theorized ways to bolster the transit agency’s revenue and trickling post-pandemic ridership, which remains only 30% of 2019 levels. It’s expected that Caltrain’s switch from diesel to electric trains will narrow the pre- and post-pandemic gap, largely due to more frequent and quicker service, but even with the calculated assumptions, the agency still faces a projected operating annual deficit of $100 million beginning around fiscal year 2033.
“Thinking about and growing ridership has to be a priority,” Alex Burnett, Caltrain’s financial strategy consultant, said. “And we have to begin thinking about a multifaceted long-term funding strategy. That means we need every incremental dollar we can get, and it means looking every place we can for incremental money.”
While low ridership is a detriment to the agency’s fiscal health, Burnett also said unplanned electrification cost increases, including Pacific Gas and Electric rate hikes, are partially driving the need to seek more sources of revenue.
But in response to staff’s proposed solutions, some members, including Steve Heminger floated the possibility of steeper fare increases, and Board Member Ray Mueller, also a San Mateo County supervisor, probed further on the issue of fare evasion, recounting his personal experience with the lack of fare enforcement while recently riding Caltrain.
“We really need to look at what we’re doing around fare evasion enforcement,” Mueller said. “Over the last three weeks, what I’ve noticed is that I am never checked to see if I purchased a ticket or used my Clipper, and I picked up on that early on. At one point I stopped using it to see if I’d be stopped or checked and was never asked for my proof that I’d purchased a ticket.”
Staff confirmed ridership data and subsequent revenue projections are only based on those who pay — whether they are independent riders or Go Pass members — and Mueller said he has yet to see ridership data based on independent counts. Go Pass, an organization-based membership plan for employees and students, shows sharp drops in participation, with 70% of such revenue expected to decrease over the next decade. Measure RR, a sales tax approved in 2020, supplements the agency’s operating budget, but taking those funds into account alongside fare revenue still only covers about 70% of total expenses, according to staff.
“If we’re looking at margins of 20% that make a difference … it’s really important that we drill down on what percentage is not paying to ride the trains,” Mueller said. “Especially in light of the fact that there will probably be a regional measure going forward to voters, I think we have an obligation to tell them we are doing everything we can to make sure people are paying to ride the train.”
If ridership is at 30%, take trains off the schedule so you’re only running at 50%. Then increase the number of trains if ridership increases. That’ll save you much more than enforcing fares (although that should also be performed). BTW, what is the estimate of the money they’ll receive from fare evaders? Are we talking thousands, millions, or multi-millions of dollars? Also will there be increased staffing to catch fare evaders? And if fare evaders are caught, do they really care? If the amount is under $950, they’ll likely be ignored and allowed passage.
One issue that seems overlooked is that electrification, besides the multi-zillion dollar infrastructure cost, costs more in energy than the diesel electric system now in use. Even BART, not the pinnacle of efficiency, figured that out when they extended service to Antioch from Pittsburg with diesel electric engines.
What a novel idea, asking riders to pay their "fare" share... They could also cut back on how often trains run, charge more, cut salaries or lay off workers.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
If ridership is at 30%, take trains off the schedule so you’re only running at 50%. Then increase the number of trains if ridership increases. That’ll save you much more than enforcing fares (although that should also be performed). BTW, what is the estimate of the money they’ll receive from fare evaders? Are we talking thousands, millions, or multi-millions of dollars? Also will there be increased staffing to catch fare evaders? And if fare evaders are caught, do they really care? If the amount is under $950, they’ll likely be ignored and allowed passage.
One issue that seems overlooked is that electrification, besides the multi-zillion dollar infrastructure cost, costs more in energy than the diesel electric system now in use. Even BART, not the pinnacle of efficiency, figured that out when they extended service to Antioch from Pittsburg with diesel electric engines.
What a novel idea, asking riders to pay their "fare" share... They could also cut back on how often trains run, charge more, cut salaries or lay off workers.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.