Summary
April 18, 2024
The Honorable Dave Cortese
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
State Capitol, Room 405
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Senator Scott Weiner
1021 O Street, Room 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Steve Glazer
Chair, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
State Capitol, Room 407
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Senator Aisha Wahab
1021 O Street, Room 7330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairs Cortese and Glazer, and Senators Weiner and Wahab,
The Marin County Board of Supervisors received your April 9, 2024 letter, requesting local feedback and perspectives on the proposed Senate Bill 1031 – in order to inform the Sen Pro Tempore Mike McGuire’s informal working group on the legislation. We appreciate this
opportunity to share some considerations of the County and our local transportation agencies, however we would like to be clear that our Board – nor any Marin transportation agencies – have not taken a Support or Oppose position on Senate Bill 1031 at this time.
As requested in your April letter, our staff have also consulted with the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). Considerations outlined in this letter therefore reflect the perspective of our county transportation commission as well.
Marin County has three public transit agencies:
- Marin Transit (serves Marin only)
- Golden Gate Transit (serves Marin, Sonoma, San Francisco, and Contra Costa)
- Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, SMART (serves Marin and Sonoma counties)
Revenue measure
We appreciate that transit is a regional issue, and well-maintained infrastructure benefits the Bay Area on a whole – even counties not directly connected to a specific transit line. However, ensuring that the measure has strong return to source provisions is key, and we
appreciate the work that MTC has done in recent amendments to strengthen SB 1031’s return-to-source provisions. County transportation agencies, such as TAM, have decades of experience in distributing funding to local jurisdictions for local projects, and stand ready to
assist in administering a return to source provision such as is envisioned for the Safe Streets category in SB 1031.
Accountability for good performance is another critical component to the measure, which SB 1031 has made meaningful efforts to address. We recognize that the failure of any transit operators in the Bay Area would have a deleterious ripple effect on the entire transit system,
and a regionwide approved measure would be a significant funding opportunity for operators facing fiscal cliffs. However, SB 1031’s revenue distribution methodology should “reward” efficient and effective transit operators. It is clear that SB 1031 makes a meaningful effort on performance accountability by tying continued receipt of funding to ridership outcomes. We believe that another important metric that should be included is improved cost effectiveness. These could include maintaining or reducing cost per hour of service, or total subsidy per passenger.
On ridership, SB 1031 should address the balance between operators recovering from the pandemic and avoiding funding inefficiencies from operators that fail to show improvements over a reasonable period. We also know that transit ridership trends have changed
significantly since the pandemic. More riders are using transit on weekends and for mid-day trips than in 2019. Therefore, a determination of an agency’s “recovery” should not simply mirror pre-pandemic ridership data – but to view ridership holistically and inclusive of non-commute hours.
Additionally, SB 1031 currently presents a number of options for a revenue mechanism. If a Bay Area-wide sales tax is pursued, then SB 1031 should comprehensively address jurisdictions in the Bay Area which are at their sales tax cap (and/or the measure would
cause them to be). Currently, sales tax caps are addressed individually by jurisdiction-sponsored state legislation to raise it. It would be highly inefficient if all jurisdictions which SB 1031’s tax measure caused them to reach their sales tax cap had to individually sponsor
legislation to increase that cap, and MTC’s goal of reaching $1 billion in revenue collection will not be realized unless every Bay Area jurisdiction is included in the ballot measure. In Marin, four jurisdictions are presently at the cap, and upcoming ballot plans could increase
that number before 2026.
Finally, Marin County’s SMART shares the concern of other Bay Area transit agencies of SB 1031’s possible future ballot competition. SMART is moving forward with putting an extension of their sales tax to voters before its current tax expires in 2029. An MTC regional
tax measure to support transit under SB 1031 on the same ballot (or on an election preceding), could reduce the likelihood that SMART’s sales tax measure would pass with the same voters. SMART’s sales tax extension is absolutely critical to the agency’s continued
operations.
Consolidation study
A comprehensive study for the Bay Area’s 27 transit agencies should include feedback from a wide and diverse set of local stakeholders in all 9 Bay Area counties, and meaningful consideration of how local input and guidance would be maintained in a consolidation. An
advantage of local transit agencies is their deep understanding of the communities they serve, and the needs of very localized areas. Any consolidation and resulting dissolution of local Boards and Commissions into broader regional ones has the risk of reduced
knowledgeable input from local stakeholders and leaders. A consolidation study must clearly address how local needs and input will continue to be meaningfully incorporated into a consolidated agency.
Additionally, efforts to consolidate are often pursued because of anticipated cost savings. However, a consolidation of transit agencies across the Bay Area with different bargaining units, governance, and operating structures may in fact increase operating costs on a
whole. It is critical that a study carefully consider impacts of consolidation on costs, and take them into account in any final recommendations.
Finally, we understand that there is a perception that riders (and prospective riders) that currently transfer between more than one transit system on a trip would be better served in timing coordination and trip planning if it were the same transit agency serving all of their
routes/transfers. However, data from Marin’s transit agencies show relatively few riders actually transfer to another system on their transit trips. Therefore, the consolidation study should take into account the extent to which these multi-agency transfers actually
occur, and weigh the costs of consolidation with the actual benefit to riders.
We thank you again for soliciting input, feedback and insights from our County Board of Supervisors. We hope that these conversations with Bay Area counties and transit agencies continue as SB 1031 continues to be shaped in the Legislature; and we welcome further
opportunities to provide a local perspective.
Sincerely,
Dennis Rodoni, President
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Cc: Marin County Board of Supervisors
Senator Mike McGuire
Assemblymember Damon Connolly
Marin Transit Board of Commissioners
Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board of Directors
Golden Gate Transit Board of Directors
Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners
Attachments:
1. April 9, 2024 letter from Senator Steve Glazer to Marin County Board President Dennis Rodoni
View the document
This document may not work with all assistive technology and is being remediated. For alternative formats, please email Talia Smith or phone 415-473-6358. To use the California relay service, dial 711.