Caltrain's cumulative operating deficit may exceed half a billion dollars over the next decade without significant changes in ridership, funding and other factors, according to a new report on the transit system's financial outlook.
Caltrain has recovered just 26% of its pre-pandemic ridership as of November 2022, the lowest rate among the Bay Area's major public transportation systems, according to a report by the consulting firm Bell Burnett & Associates presented April 6 to Caltrain's governing board.
Passengers who ride Caltrain at least four times per week fell by nearly half. In 2019, 68% of Caltrain riders rode four or more times a week.
Caltrain's future is complicated by San Francisco having one of the worst economic recoveries from the COVID-19 pandemic in North America.
As a result, Caltrain's annual deficit based on projected service and ridership is expected to eclipse $50 million per year as soon as the 2025 fiscal year and reach as high as $84 million by the 2033 fiscal year.
That cumulative deficit would reach an estimated $560 million over the next decade, Alex Burnett, a partner at the consulting firm, told Caltrain's governing board on April 6.
"The fiscal cliff is looming for many, if not all of the transit agencies," Burnett said. "Federal funding is exhausted and will be soon, certainly over the coming fiscal years. Ridership recovery is slow. ... It is likely that we will need a regional, state or federal funding solution."
The funding troubles will not affect Caltrain's efforts to fully electrify its fleet of trains by next year, as the transit network received $43 million in federal funding from last year's $1.7 trillion federal omnibus spending bill to complete the project by fall 2024.
However, according to the report from Burnett, the operating costs of electrification are expected to rise significantly, eclipsing Caltrain's annual spending on employee wages and benefits within the next two years.
Caltrain board members expressed opposition to raising fares or cutting service in the short term to improve finances.
Board member and Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez suggested lowering fares for a short time to give riders an incentive to return.
"Even if it's 100,000 riders, getting more people back used to using transit, to me, feels like a really good investment," she said.
Cutting service would have a limited effect on Caltrain's budget, Burnett said, as public rail transit has a high amount of fixed costs, like operating and maintenance.
Caltrain could ultimately be a beneficiary of a potential long-term funding measure that regional transportation officials aim to put on a future ballot, but the approval of such a measure is no sure thing.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission — the region's transit coordination body — is considering placing a $10 billion housing bond on the November 2024 ballot. The agency says it would support the development of more than 45,000 affordable housing units across the Bay Area's nine counties.
Transit officials have expressed reluctance to place housing and transit funding measures on the same ballot, anticipating that voters may shy away from approving multiple bond measures or regional tax increases at the same time.
As a result, a potential long-term transit funding measure would likely be placed on the 2026 or 2028 ballots, officials with BART said in January during a discussion of its own financial problems.
A transit funding measure would likely support either the Bay Area's five main counties — San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Contra Costa — or all nine counties across the region.
Caltrain would benefit in either case as a rail operator in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
Comments
Registered user
Jackson Park
on Apr 13, 2023 at 2:48 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2023 at 2:48 pm
This article is lacking any information about how expenditures have changed over time. It does mention that personnel and benefits are the largest expenditures. Perhaps some layoffs would help reduce costs. And a cost-benefit analysis of electrification would also be interesting. Perhaps it shouldn't be pursued.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 13, 2023 at 5:55 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2023 at 5:55 pm
Sorry Dan, the electrification ship has sailed. It’s way too far into the project to turn back. The catenary is mostly up and the actual trains have already started arriving from Utah. To back out now would be total management malfeasance.
What I see as some of their easy fix short term solutions is to embrace the people that are actually using the system. The commuters are mostly gone, which leaves them with the leisure users. Instead of adding trains and running specials, they pack hundreds of people, standing rom only into their regularly scheduled trains to Giants and Sharks games. There should be an express train to Redwood City after every Giants game, but currently they only offer the tedious local that stops at every stop. Despite being packed the trains they do run after games, don’t don’t consistently enforce fare controls. And why are they screwing with weekend service on game days?? They should do bus bridges and all that other nonsense on “bare minimum mondays” when the trains are empty.
Then there’s the 49ers trains. Taking the train and transferring to VTA is extremely tedious. VTA needs to run non stop express trains from MV to Levi’s at least every ten minutes and have busses to take the handful of regular passengers to every stop skipped. This, or maybe Caltrain should look into running specials to Santa Clara and then reverse up the line to the preexisting ACE/Amtrak Great America Station right next to Levi’s.
Then of course as you mentioned, CUT THE FAT. All of these transit agencies have too much administrative structure. Having a multi six figure CEO is fine, but they should be a regional director overlooking multiple systems. There is simply too much management and administration.
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Apr 13, 2023 at 7:07 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2023 at 7:07 pm
Apparently you the biggest cost is electricity. Which they expect to be double what they spend on diesel today.
Registered user
another community
on Apr 16, 2023 at 2:36 pm
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2023 at 2:36 pm
The plans call for twice as many trains per day as have been the norm. Now that so many existing trains are running empty, the easy way to save money is to run fewer trains. The electric still makes the trains faster and quieter, but nothing says that there have to be so many more. Another issue is that they have the capability planned to make each train longer and so to have a greater passenger capacity. They can also stop quicker at stations and so don't have to have the case where many trains skip most of the stations "express" or the like.
I would really say that the trains as they are run pretty frequently. There doesn't have to be as big of a deficit if the schedule plans are simply adjusted. The trains run more freqnently at peak times simply to try to get the capacity. Having a train 10 minutes earlier isn't a big draw to passengers.
It would bre REALLY bad if passemger demand stays down like this for 10 years and no change is made in the shcedule. Sort of absurd it owuld be.
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Apr 25, 2023 at 9:38 am
Registered user
on Apr 25, 2023 at 9:38 am
A bit of the reporting (or was it the report?) makes no sense to me. What about the physics? More trains = more electricity - which is an Operational Cost which exactly scales with operations (or do they get hit with the new PGE baseline / independent of actual electrical power usage?). If you decrease trains - decrease staff (or 20% furlough) - decrease equipment use - decrease maintenance (unused electric trains need very little maintenance). Also - decrease the electric train 'set' acceptance rate (slow down that contract/not cancel).
Board needs to 'get real' / cut some service / increase some fares/.
(an irregular CalTrain rider)