BAY AREA REGIONAL RAIL PLAN
GOVERNANCE TASK
Technical Memorandum
Task 5a. Governance; Phase I, Task 1
Survey and Examples of Existing Functional and
Institutional Arrangements for Delivery of Regional
Commuter Rail Services
January 25, 2007
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 1 -
INTRODUCTION
Consideration of Regional Rail Governance is:
·   Included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) 2007 Legislative
Program;
·   One of MTC’s requirements listed as a condition for performing the Regional Rail
Study; and,
·   Required by the RM2 enabling legislation which specifically lists “ recommendations
for a governance strategy to implement and operate future regional rail services” as
an element of the Regional Rail Study.
There are several reasons for exploring governance strategies in the Regional Rail Plan. The
first is based on the realization that the plan recommends expanded service areas outside of the
political boundaries of the existing providers of regional rail service. Implementation of the plan
will require a change from the current governance systems: one that reflects the
financial/ political/ representational patterns of the current and future service area. The second
reason for this exploration is the opportunity to redesign the way that the region is currently
providing rail service. Development of the long- range plan creates an opportunity to explore
more efficiency and effectiveness through planned institutional change, so that the region can
begin to take the steps necessary for the ultimate delivery of the long- range vision.
To this end, this Tech Memo provides a survey of examples of governance models taken from
the Bay Area and other areas which are intended to provoke informed discussion of the
potential benefits, possible pitfalls, and specific strategies for rolling- out of new services and
expansion of existing services under the Regional Rail Plan.
Background
On March 2, 2004, voters passed Regional Measure 2 ( RM2). Tolls on seven state- owned toll
bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area were raised by $ 1.00 to fund various transportation
projects and initiatives. RM2 includes the following elements which are relevant to the Regional
Rail planning process:
·   Capital and Operating Funds – A wide range of projects are funded, many of which
will implement transit facilities and services of regional significance which are
included in the Regional Rail Plan.
·   Transit Connectivity Plan – The Transit Connectivity Plan details a comprehensive
strategy for easing passengers’ movement from one transit system to another by
providing more reliable connections, making it easier to pay fares, improving way-finding
signage and reducing overall travel times. By making multi- operator transit
trips easier and more convenient, good connectivity can help attract new transit
riders — and retain existing riders. The Regional Rail planning effort will incorporate
provisions of the Transit Connectivity plan and will identify additional provisions to
improve connectivity through development facilities and services which improve the
integration of the transit experience for customers.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 2 -
·   TravInfo/ 511 – An integrated traveler information system which provides point- to-point
travel information to the public. This system has been expanded into the “ 511”
service which provides traveler information by telephone as well as web- based
distribution which includes on- line information on schedules, trip planning, fares,
service advisories and other information. The RM2 projects list includes specific
projects aimed at providing advanced technologies for data collection and
information distribution to transit riders.
·   Translink – A joint effort of MTC and Bay Area transit agencies, Translink is an
initiative to provide a universal farecard which consists of a “ stored value” card and
contact readers – Translink cards are simply “ tagged” by touching them to readers
installed on buses or at the entrance to stations and terminals. As such, the need for
paper transfers is eliminated. TransLink will roll out in phases, debuting in late 2006
on AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit and Ferry, and Dumbarton Express routes.
BART, Muni and Caltrain are scheduled to begin accepting TransLink in 2007.
SamTrans and Santa Clara VTA will start accepting TransLink in 2008, and 19
additional Bay Area transit agencies will allow payment with TransLink by 2010.
Once all agencies are on board, a customer will be able to ride every transit system
from San Jose to Santa Rosa with just one card.
Premise
For the purposes of the Governance discussion, it is presumed that there are significant benefits
to be gained by improving the regional integration and consistency of transit services, including
regional rail services.
Indeed, the initial Planning Charrette Workshops conducted with key stakeholders at the outset
of the planning process identified as a key principle for planning:
“ Think Like A Passenger – Provide Convenient, Efficient Service”
The initiatives underway in the Translink and TravInfo/ 511 arenas provide a platform for further
expansion into:
·   A Unified Rational Fare Structure;
·   Universal Paperless Fare Collection & Transfers; and,
·   Schedule Coordination within and between Transit Modes.
In addition to initiatives which directly interface with the customer, there are a number of
opportunities in procurement and operations which could yield significant capital as well as
operations and maintenance savings for services providers including:
·   Common equipment specifications resulting in cost savings through larger
equipment orders as well as opportunities to share vehicles between compatible
services;
·   Reduced maintenance cost due to fewer equipment types and potential for
shared maintenance facilities; and,
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 3 -
·   Centralized operations dispatch providing better coordination of services and
responses to incidents.
Finally, there could be significant staff savings resulting in reduced administrative cost for
various functions including:
·   Administration;
·   Customer Relations;
·   Safety & Security; and,
·   Planning, Engineering & Construction.
It is clearly understood that some of the potential benefits to be gained would not come without
issues, concerns, stumbling blocks, and downsides. These may include:
·   Potential for higher labor costs, especially to those existing operations which may
rely heavily upon contracted services;
·   Potential for labor disputes to result in disruption at the regional level in the event
of a major work stoppage or slowdown; and,
·   Loss of local accountability, whether perceived or real.
Basis for Discussion
It is not the purpose of this paper to specifically quantify in any detail the benefits nor to evaluate
the potential negatives, but rather to provide a basis for an informed discussion of the issues,
ultimately considering specific, concrete examples of services expansions which may be
provided under the Regional Rail Plan.
This report will be used as a basis for discussion in a workshop or workshops where the general
managers of agencies providing regional rail will explore scenarios for the
realignment/ reorganization of these services in the Bay Area. The results of the workshops will
then be used to develop recommended organizational and governance strategies for inclusion
in the draft Regional Rail Plan.
This report first gives a summary of how regional rail services are organized in eleven large
metropolitan areas, including San Francisco. The second section of the report outlines the ways
in which these systems fall into different organizational models. The final section provides
preliminary criteria that can be used to guide the thinking about possible governance scenarios
for the Regional Rail Plan. These criteria will be expanded in the above- mentioned policy
workshops.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 4 -
ORGANIZATION AND PROFILE
The organizations chosen for discussion ( see Table 1 for a summary) are presented in two
groups. The first group consists of large metro systems with significant commuter coverage and
ridership: New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia at the top tier of size and complexity, and
Boston, Baltimore, and Washington D. C., in the second tier. The inventory of these large U. S.
systems is based on the work of Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. For the
purpose of his research, Litman identified these six metropolitan areas as “ large rail” where
transit represents more than 20% of total commutes and also where more than half of all
passenger miles are by rail.
Based on recommendations from the Project Steering Committee, a second group of systems
has been added. This group includes Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Zurich, and San
Francisco; each of these systems has characteristics that might be appropriate for consideration
in structuring the long- range provision of regional rail service in the Bay Area. Litman actually
included San Francisco in the group discussed above, but it is placed in Group 2 for a better
comparison to newer systems on the West Coast. There is one other difference in the two
groups below: Group 1 systems give information on the organization of the entire metro system,
regional rail included; Group 2 systems focus only on how the regional rail service is organized
and provided in the metro area.
GROUP # 1
New York – Metropolitan Transit Authority – MTA
The MTA was created by the state legislature in 1965 as a public benefit corporation and is
responsible for a comprehensive network of transit, commuter rail, and bridge and tunnel
facilities in the greater metropolitan area. The MTA functions with a board of seventeen
members nominated by the governor, with some recommended by the New York City mayor
and county executives of suburban counties. There are also six additional rotating non- voting
members who represent organized labor and the citizens’ advisory committee. All board
members must be confirmed by the New York State Senate.
The service area covers Manhattan, Long Island, southeastern New York State, and the state of
Connecticut, with an estimated population of 14.5 million. Annual ridership for the entire system
is 2.4 billion passenger trips. The major components of the regional system are:
New York City Transit - provides subway and bus service to Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, the Bronx and the Staten Island Railway.
Long Island Rail Road – commuter rail service from three hubs in New York City to
eastern Long Island.
Long Island Bus – formed in 1973 through combination of ten private bus carriers and
provides service to 96 communities, 47 LIRR stations, and five subway stations in Nassau,
western Suffolk and eastern Queens counties.
Metro- North Railroad – consolidation of several private commuter railroads with service
out of Grand Central Terminal northward to suburban New York and Connecticut.
Bridges and Tunnels – system of five bridges and two tunnels in New York City serving
more than a million people daily; surplus toll revenues help subsidize mass transit
The most prominent regional rail systems are the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro North
Railroad. MTA’s Long Island Rail Road, provides extensive service to the island with over 700
miles of track, one mainline, eleven branches, and 124 stations. The system has an annual
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 5 -
ridership of 98 million, with an average weekday ridership of 343,000. Freight service is also
operated on the system through a lease agreement with the New York and Atlantic Railway.
Metro North Railroad, the second busiest commuter operation in the country, has annual
ridership of 74 million and carries an average weekday ridership of 258,000. The service is
operated in conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Transportation and New Jersey
Transit.
Chicago – Regional Transit Authority – RTA
The RTA is the regional transportation planning and budgeting agency for six counties that
make up the Chicago metro area. The original RTA was created in 1974 by referendum as a
special purpose unit of local government; in 1983, the enabling legislation was amended to
clarify its role with respect to three subsidiary service boards: the Chicago Transit Authority
( CTA), Metra commuter rail, and Pace suburban bus.
The RTA’s oversight role is guided by a thirteen member appointed Board of Directors, who has
the responsibility to approve an annual budget and a two- year financial plan. The Board also
distributes dedicated regional sales tax receipts and approves a five- year capital plan, which
serves as the blueprint for programs to be implemented by CTA, Metra and Pace.
CTA, Metra and Pace are each led by a Board of Directors who determines levels of service,
fares and operational policies. The CTA is governed by a seven- member board appointed by
the Mayor of Chicago and the governor. Metra’s board consists of seven members appointed
by the region’s county boards and the Mayor. Pace is governed by a twelve- member board
made up of current and former suburban village presidents and mayors. Six directors are
appointed by the suburban members of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, as defined
in the RTA Act, five directors are appointed by each of the five suburban counties, and the
chairman is appointed by the chairman of the county commissions and the suburban members
of the Cook County Board of Commissioners.
Metra provides rail commuter service through a 495 mile system in Cook, DuPage, and Lake,
Will, McHenry and Kane counties. There are eleven lines with Metra directly operating more
than fifty percent of the service ( four lines) and contracting with Union Pacific Corporation, and
BNSF Railway for service on an additional four lines. Metra also has trackage agreements with
Canadian National and Norfolk Southern on two of the lines. Annual Metra ridership is nearly
eighty million, with average weekday ridership at 305,000 in the second quarter of 2006.
Philadelphia – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority- SEPTA
Established by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania under state charter in 1964, SEPTA now
provides bus and rail services to a five county area of roughly 2,000 square miles. The agency
provides the full range of public transit services for Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and
Philadelphia counties. Although its original purpose was to coordinate government subsidies to
various transit and commuter railroads in the region, it has evolved, through a series of
acquisitions from 1965 through 1983, into the coordinator and provider of services in
southeastern Pennsylvania.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 6 -
The agency is governed by a fifteen member board, with each of the five counties appointing
two members, the Legislature appointing four members and the governor appointing one
member. Annual ridership is nearly 300 million passengers.
There are three major divisions in the SEPTA organization: 1) City Transit ( bus and rail services
primarily within the City of Philadelphia), 2) Suburban ( bus and suburban trolley lines that are
the remaining portion of the former Red Arrow trolley system), and 3) Regional Rail ( RRD). The
RRD was created as a division of SEPTA in 1983, with the acquisition of Conrail assets; SEPTA
had previously contracted for this service with Conrail. This division operates commuter rail
( seven lines/ thirteen branches) that extends as far as Newark, Delaware, and Trenton, New
Jersey. Average weekday ridership for the RRD is 107,000, with annual 2005 ridership at 30
million passengers.
AMTRAK provides rail service beyond SEPTA’s range, but overlaps service to some degree
with three SEPTA commuter lines. AMTRAK service is faster, but also more expensive.
Boston – Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority – The T
The MBTA was created in 1964 to finance and operate bus, subway, commuter rail and ferry
systems in the greater Boston area. After a severe financial crisis in December 1980, the State
revised the authorizing legislation and expanded the board from five to seven members, all of
whom are appointed by and have concurrent terms with the Governor. This is an independent
body and is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There are two
board members from outside the district. One of the board members is the Secretary of
Transportation, who chairs the board. The authorizing legislation provides for an Advisory
Board made up of one official or designee from each of the 175 cities and towns in the district.
Total ridership for the MBTA in 2004 was 390 million passengers. The system contains a total
of 181 routes with bus, light rail, rapid transit, trolley bus, water ferry and commuter rail.
The commuter rail system is a suburban rail network that shares its tracks with freight
operations, though unlike most US commuter rail systems, the majority of the track is owned by
the MBTA. There are thirteen lines and three of these are jointly used by AMTRAK for long
distance intercity service. A subsidiary organization, the Massachusetts Bay Commuter
Railroad Company, manages the contracts for commuter rail service on MBTA- owned rolling
stock and right of way. Commuter rail annual ridership in 2004 was 40 million.
Washington – Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority – WMATA
The creation of WMATA came out of the politics of freeway opposition in the 1950’ s. The
Authority was created in 1967 as an Interstate Compact to plan, develop, build, finance and
operate a regional transportation system for the National Capital area. Construction began in
1969 and four private bus systems were acquired in 1973. The final segment of the original
103- mile rail network was completed in 2001. Currently, the Metrorail system has 86 stations in
a 106.3 mile network and an annual ridership of 206 million.
Metrorail and Metrobus serve a population of 3.5 million within a 1,500 square- mile area. The
area covers the District of Columbia, the suburban Maryland counties of Montgomery and
Prince George’s and the Northern Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun and the
cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and Falls Church. Metrobus has an annual ridership of 117 million.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 7 -
The WMATA board has six voting members and six alternates all of whom are appointed by the
governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia; with the states
and the District getting two members and two alternates each.
Baltimore – Maryland Transit Administration – MTA
This organization is a division of the State’s Department of Transportation and operates local
bus, light rail, Baltimore subway, MARC commuter train, and commuter bus services for the
metropolitan area. In addition, this division is responsible for a $ 30 million annual contribution to
WMATA and coordinates rail freight logistics in all twenty- three counties of the State. Annual
transit ridership in the Baltimore metro area is 92 million.
The MTA operates a 15.5 mile Metro subway rail line through the City that connects to BWI
airport. The MTA also operates a 27 mile surface light rail line. In addition, the MTA contracts
with CSX and AMTRAK to provide MARC rail commuter service on three lines, connecting
Union Station in Washington, D. C. with Baltimore’s two intercity rail stations.
GROUP # 2
This second group profiles Seattle, Zurich and California systems, including San Francisco.
The information given for the systems in this group focuses only on those agencies in a region
that provide regional rail services.
San Diego – North County Transit District- San Diego Coaster
The consolidated agency in the San Diego metro area responsible for transportation planning
and programming and implementation is the San Diego Association of Governments
( SANDAG). However, regional rail, the San Diego Coaster, is provided by the North County
Transit District ( NCTD), through a subsidiary, the San Diego Northern Railway. The NCTD
service area is roughly 1,020 square miles, from the cities of Del Mar to Escondido, north to
Riverside County and east to Orange County. Area population is approximately one million.
NCTD is directed by a nine- member board, one member from each incorporated city in the
service area, and the incumbent 5th District San Diego County Supervisor.
NCTD owns the 48 miles of Coaster right- of – way between Oceanside and downtown San
Diego and provides commuter service in this corridor to eight stations, connecting with Amtrak
and San Diego Trolley in downtown San Diego and to Amtrak and to LA’s Metrolink at the
Oceanside station. Annual ridership for 2005 was 1.5 million passengers, with an average daily
ridership of 5,400. NCTD also owns the 22- mile right- of- way for the planned second regional
commuter line, the Sprinter, opening in late 2007, with service running east- west between
Oceanside and Escondido.
NCTD, through the San Diego Northern Railway, contracts with Transit- America, a subsidiary of
Herzog Transit Services, for operating and maintenance personnel. This contact was
performed by Amtrak until July 2006.
Los Angeles – Southern California Regional Rail Authority – ( SCRRA) – Metrolink
Metrolink was created as the SCRRA by State legislation in 1990 and service under the
Metrolink name began in 1992. The organization is a Joint Powers Authority ( JPA) created by
county transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Ventura, and San
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 8 -
Bernardino counties. The agency is guided by an eleven- member board with appointed
representatives from each of the counties and ex- officio members from San Diego Association
of Governments, Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Secretary
of Business, Transportation and Housing.
The system serves fifty cities with seven lines; it connects to the San Diego Coaster at
Oceanside and connects to Metro Rail at Union Station. There is a total of 511.6 miles of track,
the majority owned by Metrolink; many sections of the track are shared with freight operations
and many sections are also single track, creating challenges for schedule adherence. Metrolink
provides the service through an operating contract with Connex; Amtrak held this contract prior
to July 2005. Annual ridership for 2005 was 10.3 million with current average weekday ridership
at 42,000.
Seattle – Sound Transit - Sounder
Sound Transit, created by voter initiative in November 1996, was established to plan, build, and
operate regional transit systems for the Central Puget Sound area ( King, Pierce, and
Snohomish counties). The agency is governed by an 18- member board ( 17 locals and the
State Secretary of Transportation); King County holds ten seats, Pierce holds four, and
Snohomish has three. Members must be locally elected officials and half of a county’s
delegation has to also serve on local transit authority governing boards.
Sound Transit, began regional rail service in 2000 with the Sounder, an 82- mile, 12 station
service between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. Ridership in 2005 was 172,000 and
average daily boardings for 2006 are 6,000 passengers.
The initiative that established Sound Transit included provisions for a proportionate return- to-source
of the dedicated tax to five geographic areas in the region. Also included in the
successful initiative were requirements for an integrated fare structure and coordinated local
transit service coordination.
Canton of Zurich
The City of Zurich and the surrounding metropolitan area ( population 1.2 million) is often
referred to as a valuable model of how to implement regional rail service integrated with the
existing local infrastructure. However, the path to success was a bumpy and lengthy one. The
initial response to growth and congestion in the 1960’ s ( placing the existing streetcar system
underground) was defeated by the voters as too disruptive to the city without sufficient regional
benefit. Then in the 1970’ s, plans for a city metro and a suburban commuter rail system were
also rejected by voters because of the high cost ( 675 million dollars) and fears that it would spur
the “ Manhattanization” of Zurich. Finally, in 1981, voters gave approval to an initiative that
would plan and implement a leveraged Federal investment for the U- Bahn national system with
local commitment to a 1.25 mile tunnel under the City providing a 4 track underground through
station at Main Terminal.
Regional transit service, including regional rail, to the whole canton of Zurich is administered
through the Zuricher Verkehrsverbund ( ZVV), a special purpose agency created by the Swiss
Parliament in 1990. The ZVV administers the cost sharing, fare integration and schedule
coordination for the 171 communities in the service area. The agency, known as the Transport
Council, has a nine- member board whose members are appointed by the governing bodies of
each of the communities in the canton. Board representation is roughly proportional to
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 9 -
population served. Representatives of the Swiss Federal Transport Office and the Swiss
Federal Railways are also on the Council.
San Francisco Bay Area
The Bay Area has four providers of regional rail services. Each are described briefly below:
Caltrain – Regional rail commuter service is provided between Gilroy and San Francisco by the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( JPB), with representation from three members: City and
County of San Francisco, San Mateo Transit District, and Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority.
There is a nine- member board with three appointed representatives from each of the members.
Formed in 1987, the JPB took over the responsibility for the service from the State of California
( Caltrans Division of Rail) in 1992. The JPB owns the 77 mile right of way but contracts with
Amtrak for operating personnel. Day- to- day management and staff support is provided by the
San Mateo County Transit District ( Samtrans).
The system includes 33 stops or stations and had a 2005 annual ridership of 9.9 million.
Average weekday ridership in early 2006 was 32,000. Both local and express service is offered
and connections to other rail service include: BART at Millbrae station, Capitol Corridor and
ACE in San Jose, and Muni Metro in downtown San Francisco.
BART – The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit District was created by the Legislature in
1957, when it was expected that five Bay Area counties would be joining the effort to build the
first new regional rail system. Eventually, the counties of Marin and San Mateo opted out of the
district, leaving San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties ( service is currently
operated in San Mateo County under a purchase of service agreement between BART and
Samtrans.) The agency is guided by nine elected board members representing that same
number of districts in the three- county service area.
Rail service is provided through five lines and 43 stations for the 104 mile system on its own
separate right of way. Ridership for 2005 was 9.3 million, with average weekday ridership at
311,000. Direct connections to other rail services include: Caltrain at the Millbrae station;
Capitol Corridor at the Richmond and Coliseum stations and MUNI in a shared tunnel through
downtown and other points in San Francisco.
Altamont Commuter Express – This service was created in 1997 through a Joint Powers
Agreement between the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ( SJRRC), Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority. Policy and day
to day management are provided by the SJRRC. The board has eight regular members and
two additional special voting members from BART and Alameda County. There are also ex
officio members representing Caltrans District 10, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, and
San Joaquin Council of Governments.
This commuter service connects the cities of Stockton and San Jose along 86 miles of track
with stops at eight intermediate locations. SJRRC contracts with Herzog Transit Services for
operations and maintenance personnel. There is also an operating agreement with the Union
Pacific, who owns the right of way. Average weekday ridership is 3,100 and total ridership for
2005 was 618,000.
Capitol Corridor – Originally managed by Caltrans and still considered part of California Amtrak,
this 170 mile system provides rail service to eight northern California counties ( Placer,
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 10 -
Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, and Santa Clara). The
governing structure is a joint powers agreement between six local transit agencies that serve
the counties above. There is a 16- member board, with two representatives from each of the 8
counties. Board appointments are made through the member transit districts. The current
governance structure was put into place in 2003.
The service operates on tracks owned and dispatched by the Union Pacific Railroad and on a
section of track from Santa Clara to San Jose owned and dispatched by Caltrain. Operating
personnel are provided through an operating agreement with Amtrak. The CCJPA also
contracts with BART to act as the day- to day management agency for the service. Ridership in
2005 was 1.3 million.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 11 -
ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR REGIONAL RAIL DELIVERY
Based on an analysis of the above regions, three organizational models initially emerged, based
on the extent of local versus state control. These models are discussed below along with a
subsequent refinement based on the levels of consolidation of transportation functions.
Initial Grouping
Model # 1 – Autonomous Regional Agency
These agencies have usually evolved from the consolidation of several public and private
agencies and their formation generally responded to the need for improved coordination of
service and accountability. In many cases, their creation was also linked to fiscal crises that
called for state intervention. These agencies in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Zurich, are
characterized by appointed boards, representation closely aligned with area political
subdivisions, and the authority to balance financial resources with service demands. Although
similar in historical development, these agencies vary in the role that the state plays and in
whether they are umbrella agencies, like the Chicago RTA, or serve as both coordinator and
direct provider of services, such as Philadelphia’s SEPTA.
The extent of regional control over local providers also varies with these three organizations.
For example, the RTA allows subsidiary boards of the Chicago Transit Authority, Pace, and
Metra to set fares and schedules, In Zurich, the ZVV extends its coordination role to the
authority for specifying service levels and the amount of funding that will be paid for those
services. Although negotiated in an intergovernmental manner, the ZVV is closer in nature to a
contracted purchase of service than the RTA situation where the board has control of regional
budget and capital planning, but not service planning.
It is important to note that there are additional sub- models within the category of the
Autonomous Regional Agency which to a degree depend upon how the entity was established.
Principal options include:
a. Joint Powers Authority ( JPA) – The JPA has historically been a significant model for
formation of governance structures for regional rail operations including Caltrain
( Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board), Capitol Corridor ( Capitol Corridor Joint Powers
Authority) and ACE ( Altamont Commuter Express Joint Powers Authority). JPA’s are in
essence built- up by aggregating authorities from constituent districts, typically from
Counties and their transportation funding commissions. JPA’s are especially prevalent
where local taxing authority is passed in conjunction with proposals for retaining or
expanding rail service. These JPA’s thus become more like sub- regional agencies with
the risk of overlapping responsibilities and narrow focus. They may or may not provide
an appropriate model for a large scale regional network and existing JPA’s in Northern
California already have overlapping geographic areas.
b. New Regional Authority ( District) formed by Vote of Constituents – In Northern
California, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is an example of a regional rail district
which was formed to represent those counties whose voters opted- in to form a regional
transportation provider. Factors which become of concern with self- formed districts
include the inability of the district to administratively and financially serve jurisdictions
which do not vote to join ( e. g., BART and Marin County), as well as subsequent
problems with extending service to or expanding the boundaries of such districts ( e. g.,
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 12 -
BART and San Mateo County.) The State may play a role in establishment of new
regional authority by passing enabling legislation spelling out the boundaries, mission
and authorities granted to a proposed district.
c. New Regional Authority formed by State Mandate – Some of the problems associated by
local vote- in or buy in may be resolved by State- level action to define and enable a
district through statutorily passed legislation. In this case, the agreement to form the
district is made by decision of the legislators rather than a direct popular vote of the
electorate. An example of this model is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority,
which operates the Metrolink service. Although SCRRA is technically a JPA, its
formation was mandated in June 1990, when the California Legislature enacted Senate
Bill 1402, Chapter four of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code. The bill required the
transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San
Bernardino to develop jointly a plan for regional transit services within the multi- county
region. It is worth noting that a state mandate could also be used to expand an existing
district, such as enlarging the BART service area.
Model # 2 – Regional Agency with Significant State Role
The primary examples of this model are the New York MTA and Washington’s WMATA. One
might argue that New York belongs with the above model, but since the State has significant
political and financial decision making authority over, it is more similar to the Interstate Compact
that created WMATA.
Though not included in the Table 1 inventory, we do have an example of this model in the Bay
Area, the newly created Water Transit Authority, responsible for regional ferry service, but
whose members are appointed by the Governor.
Model # 3 – Division of State Department or State Agency
Regional transportation in Boston and Baltimore are provided by state agencies; a situation
more common in small states with one dominant metropolitan area. There may be some benefit
to the Bay Area to explore functional relationships within these organizations, but they are not
likely to be the model for change in California. However, one possibility is that regional rail
could be delivered by a State agency created for northern California. These could be created
as autonomous JPA’s ( as in Model # 1) a continuing division of the State ( as in this Model # 3) or
some hybrid ( as in Model # 2).
Refined Grouping
Subsequent to discussions with the Project Steering Committee and MTC staff, the governance
models were refined to three different types, based on the level of consolidation for
transportation functions.
Decentralized
This model has multiple local authorities providing regional and local transit services, with some
funding and planning functions consolidated at the regional or sub- regional level. The primary
example is the Bay Area.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 13 -
New Regional Rail Authority
This model has a single provider of regional rail services with its own board and planning,
design, construction and operations functions. Examples are the Los Angeles and Seattle
metropolitan areas.
Federation and Oversight Authority
In this model, regional transportation funding and planning are under one authority, with a
federation of operating agencies providing rail and bus services. The Chicago RTA and the San
Diego SANDAG are examples of this model.
Consolidated Transportation Authority
This model has one agency functioning in control of planning, funding, design and operations for
a metro area. There are usually modal operating divisions that report to the regional board.
Some examples of the model are New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D. C., and
Baltimore.
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 14 -
IDENTIFICATION OF KEY CONCERNS
Based upon the literature search and interviews conducted to date, the following list of factors
have been identified as key concerns that a successful governance structure for Regional Rail
would address :
The preferred scenario:
·   Must balance local control with the need for regional performance;
·   Must provide stable funding opportunities as “ carrot” before any “ stick” of
performance/ consolidation can be mandated;
·   Must streamline administrative and overhead costs and produce economies of scale
through shared facilities, joint procurement, and integrated services
·   Must enhance ability to negotiate with private rail owners and operators;
·   Must create a specific identity or brand of new/ improved service; and,
·   Must have the option for incremental reorganization or consolidation.
·   Must provide for uniform and equitable fare structure from the user point of view
·   Must be in alignment with financial plan
·   Must provide the opportunity for increased connection and connectivity
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 15 -
Table 1
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL RAIL METRO AREAS/ SYSTEMS
NAME
POPULATION
( million)
RIDERSHIP
( annual) GOVERNANCE
SERVICE
AREA ( sq
mi)
GROUP 1
New York
MTA
14.6 240 B
17 member board, plus 6
rotating non- voting members for
interest groups, all confirmed by
State Senate
5,000
Manhattan,
Long Island,
S. E. NY
State, & CT
Chicago
RTA
8.1 571 M
13 member RTA appointed by
Governor; CTA, Metra, Pace
sub- authorities each with own
board
3,700
Cook Co. &
5 suburban
counties
Philadelphia
SEPTA
3.9
299 M
15 member board, 2 appointed
from each county, 4 from the
Legislature, 1 from the Governor
2,000
Philadelphia,
Delaware,
Montgomery,
Bucks,
Chester
Counties
Boston
MBTA
4.5
390 M
7 Commissioners appointed by
Governor, with concurrent terms
( 2 members from outside
district)
3,244
175 towns &
cities
Wash DC
WMATA
3.5 323 M 6 member board, 2 each from
D. C., VA and Maryland 1,500
Baltimore
2.6 92 M
State DOT
1,200
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 16 -
NAME
POPULATION
( million)
RIDERSHIP
( annual) GOVERNANCE
SERVICE
AREA ( sq
mi)
GROUP 2
San Diego
Coaster
1.0 1.5 m
9 member board appointed from
service area cities, non-incorporated
area and county
1,020
Los
Angeles
Metrolink
10.3 m JPA of 5 County transp
commissions 1,433
Seattle
Sounder
3.1 172 k 18 member board appointed by
member counties n/ a
Zurich
1.2
9 member Transport Council,
appointed by canton governing
bodies
n/ a
San
Francisco
7.0
Caltrain
9.9 m
9 member appointed JPB
equally represented from 3
member counties
BART
9.3 m 9 member board elected from
districts in 3 member counties
ACE
618 k
8 member + 2 special voting
member board on regional
commission; JPA with other
county funding and operating
entities
Capitol
Corridor
1.3 m
16 member board appointed
thru transit districts of 8 counties
served
Governance – Task 1: Survey and Examples for Regional Rail January 25, 2007
- 17 -
INFORMATION SOURCES
American Public Transit Association, Membership Directory, 2006.
Litman, Todd, “ Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits”, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute, August 31, 2006.
Nash, Andrew, “ Zurich’s S- Bahn System: Lessons for the San Francisco Bay Area”,
Presentation to the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2000.
Web pages/ annual reports for all metropolitan transportation agencies reviewed.
Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2004.
Governance Memo - Phase I Task 1 - Rev 4f. doc
1/ 26/ 2007 4: 30 PM