Caltrain is in the midst of a stunning yet totally unsurprising (to rail advocates at least) surge in ridership that began nearly ten years ago. Yet the agency might still be forced to cut service because it doesn’t have a dedicated funding source to support operations. Such is the madness of transportation funding in California.

Take a look at that chart. The growth is stunning. Caltrain ridership has doubled since 2004. The recession in 2009 was but a short dip in the strong upward trend. Ridership has grown by 5,000 in the last 12 months alone. Caltrain is clearly a big success.

But as NBC Bay Area reports, that doesn’t help its financial woes:

So with fare revenues flowing in at historic levels and ridership showing no signs of slowing down, it might come as a surprise that Caltrain is actually fretting how it will pay for its 2015 budget, with a projected shortfall of $17 to $19 million staring administrators in the face.

How to explain this apparent contradiction?

“Caltrain is one of the only transportation agencies in the Bay Area that lacks a dedicated funding source,” observed Jayme Ackemann, spokesperson for both Caltrain and its managing agency, the San Mateo County Transit District.

“The fare revenue covers about 60 percent of our budget, which is a significant amount,” said Ackemann. “But it doesn’t cover the entire budget. And that 40 percent hole, roughly, that we’re looking at is the part of our budget that’s difficult to fill every year.”

Caltrain basically has to cobble together a budget every year by doing the governmental equivalent of lifting the couch cushions and going hat in hand to the partner agencies, who have their own money woes. At least Muni and VTA, for example, have their own dedicated revenue sources. Caltrain doesn’t and that is why service might have to be cut even as ridership soars.

Rod Diridon has a two-pronged solution:

His suggestions are two-fold: Have the Joint Powers Board member agencies make more of a financial commitment, and/or implement a new tax with the approval of voters.

“I think if we told the public what it was going to buy and what the advantages are, they would approve it,” said Diridon. “We’re in a remarkable area in California where the people do really understand how transportation and the economy work,” he added.

The polling suggests otherwise, however, according to Ackemann.

When Caltrain studied the likelihood of passage for such a tax in each of the participating counties, it found that San Francisco would likely come just short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass the measure (60% approval), San Mateo would barely clear the threshold, and Santa Clara would come nowhere close to passage.

It would help if the state legislature would put an initiative on the ballot to lower the threshold for transportation taxes to 50%+1 as has been discussed. And Caltrain could seek revenue from just one of those counties (San Francisco, obviously) but that might not be a sustainable solution either.

My initial thought on reading this article was to suggest a regional solution. Other Bay Area transit systems need revenue too in order to sustain and expand operations, whether they’re primarily bus or rail agencies. A regional transit tax of sufficient size could generate enough revenue for Caltrain and the other agencies through a higher gas tax or some other method. The politics of getting nine counties, dozens of cities, and numerous transit agencies to agree AND to ensure that Caltrain gets enough money would be difficult, to say the least. But it’s a solution worth exploring.

But then I realized that other agencies around the state are facing similar woes. For those that aren’t, more funding is still needed to expand service. That suggests to me that this is really a statewide problem that needs a statewide solution.

Last year SPUR put out a plan that showed how California could fund high speed rail on its own. SPUR’s plan combines a variety of new revenue sources to generate $2.7 billion a year for HSR. Increase the size of some of those revenue sources – a higher statewide gas tax, for example – and you would have money available to support existing and future operations at Caltrain and other agencies.

The last statewide gas tax increase came in 1990 and was approved by voters. Whether it’s a gas tax or some combination of it and other revenues, it’s time for the state to step up and take a bigger role in funding rail and other transit operations. California’s streets and freeways are jammed with traffic. Buses and trains are popular with the public where available. Just look at Caltrain’s huge ridership gains and you’ll see there is a lot of demand for more transit and rail service.

For the sake of California’s economy and its ability to address the climate crisis, more rail service is needed. Rather than force each agency to fend for itself, sometimes competing against each other or against other local transit agencies, and instead of asking each region to hammer out a solution, the state itself needs to help provide the answer. The 2016 ballot with its high presidential turnout is less than three years away. Now’s the time to start thinking big.

The last remaining lawsuit attempting to stop the California high speed rail project will be heard on May 31 by Judge Michael Kenny in Sacramento Superior Court as the state dropped a request to consolidate all lawsuits regarding the validity of the current project plan under Prop 1A:

State officials on Thursday agreed to drop a request to consolidate all lawsuits challenging California’s use of voter-approved high-speed rail bonds, allowing a trial seeking to stop their sale to begin later this month….

The state attorney general’s office, representing the California High-Speed Rail Authority, was seeking to consolidate all lawsuits and potential future lawsuits challenging the state’s ability to sell the voter-approved bonds. Its request could have delayed the trial.

To get a resolution about whether it is legally entitled to sell more bonds, the state this spring made a highly unusual filing called a “validation action,” which essentially invites anyone with a claim against the bullet train to sue the state. It’s that action that high-speed rail officials had previously hoped to merge with the Kings County lawsuit.

I think this was the right move for the state, as it helps resolve this last potential roadblock to getting the Initial Construction Segment done. Even if the bonds are held up in court, the Authority says it will use $3.3 billion in federal stimulus funds to begin construction.

As to the lawsuit itself, well, I’ve never felt it had merit. The blended plan is not my first choice but it is a phased approach to construction that looks to me to meet the requirements of Prop 1A. The Attorney General’s office is convinced that it does, and they’ve successfully defended numerous lawsuits against the HSR project in court, including some in Judge Kenny’s courtroom. We’ll see after the May 31 hearing whether they will prevail again.

Governor Jerry Brown issued the May Revise for the state budget yesterday, and one provision has some transit advocates unhappy. The governor’s budget proposed to loan cap-and-trade funds to the general fund, which are promised to be repaid but it’s not entirely clear how that would work:

Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year that includes the first round of funds collected under the cap and trade system. In the budget, Brown “loans” the half billion in funds collected to the general fund to be paid back at some point in the unspecified future.

“We disagree with the Governor’s proposal to transfer the $500 million in cap-and-trade auction revenues to the general fund and postpone needed investments in projects and programs that could achieve greenhouse gas reductions this year,” writes Stuart Cohen, the executive director of TransForm CA….

“A decision delayed is an opportunity lost. We’re disappointed because we think that there was a real opportunity to put together an investment program that would have mattered,” said Denny Zane of Move LA.

I’m sure there are more details to this story, but I don’t see how this is a good thing to do. The cap-and-trade program is controversial and while AB 32 has weathered right-wing attacks before, including the failed effort to repeal it at the 2010 ballot, there is a very real risk that the program would lose some legitimacy and public support if it’s to be given to the general fund instead of immediately spent on projects to reduce carbon emissions. Yes, it’s a loan so the money will come back, but it would be even better for that money to be spent now on green projects.

Now it is entirely possible that the governor intends to use the money in the general fund for green things. He could start by giving more operating funds to local transit agencies, or helping to fund mass transit infrastructure. Cities and counties across the state have great plans for better bike and pedestrian infrastructure that are sitting on shelves for a lack of money, and $500 million would go a long way to helping fund those.

Some in Sacramento may defend the loan by saying there are other vital needs for that money, such as health care, schools, or human services. And I agree those are priorities too. But the state has a surplus this year. In addition, projects that reduce carbon emissions tend to be those that also help low-income folks get around more easily and cheaply (especially if that project involves transit). Green projects also usually reduce other kinds of air and water pollution, in turn improving the health of nearby communities.

I am sure that this is just the beginning of the story and that we will learn more about why this was proposed as well as how the debate over the cap-and-trade funds will unfold over the next four weeks. I also know that Governor Brown supports the cap-and-trade concept as well as green infrastructure, transit, and high speed rail. So I’m not casting doubt on anyone’s motives here. But I do agree with the other advocates that the money should be spent on green things, with transit and high speed rail being atop the list.

Today USPIRG released a new report showing that “the driving boom is over” – we’ve hit peak driving and now we’ll be seeing a long-term shift away from driving. In turn that means we need to be shifting transportation spending away from roads and toward transit and passenger rail, including high speed rail. This blog has covered that trend extensively, though the USPIRG report is particularly valuable and detailed in its assessment.

One argument you sometimes hear against this, however, is that the shift is temporary. The recession is one factor in the “the shift won’t last” view. But another is the notion that Millennials, who are the largest generation in the country, will start driving more once they settle down and have families.

Over at Streetsblog DC, Tanya Snyder pushes back against that claim. Millennials may wind up driving more than they do now, she says, but it will still overall be a smaller amount of driving than we saw in late 20th century generations. Two of her main points:

Let’s start with car culture. Young people now say that losing their computer or their cell phone would be a far greater loss than losing their car, if they even have one. Baby boomers still say losing their car would be the most disastrous. And millennials just haven’t inherited that excitement over cars or the desire to spend their time tending to them. They don’t see cars as a hobby, just a way to get around — and an increasingly inconvenient one. According to the report, “less than 15 percent of millennials describe themselves as ‘car enthusiasts’ as opposed to 30 percent of baby boomers.”

Meanwhile, we just can’t sprawl much more. We’re running out of room to build new highways, and we’re running out of money faster. The Highway Trust Fund, as we’ve endlessly reported, is in serious crisis, expected to go bankrupt in 2015. And household economics prevent another major rush to buy cars: U.S. households had 1.24 vehicles per driver in 2006, a number which has dropped only slightly and is unlikely to rise again.

Snyder also points out weaknesses with the “driverless cars” argument and the ongoing increase in gas prices. She also notes that Millennials still prefer to live in walkable neighborhoods with shorter travel times, something that’s incompatible with a lot of driving.

All of that makes sense to me. I would add one more factor. Millennials have been hit harder than any other generation by the recession and its aftermath. Others have been hit hard too but they had more time and more support to build a cushion. Millennials haven’t, and so they are necessarily becoming much more cautious with how they spend the money they do have. All of the factors that Snyder describes are reasons why Millennials will choose to spend their money on something other than cars and driving if it can be helped. If they do have to buy a car, they’ll try and make sure it lasts as long as possible, and drive it as sparingly as possible.

More importantly, Millennials would really like an alternative. So too will Boomers once they start becoming elderly and realize that they can’t or don’t want to drive everywhere either. Already you see in many American cities that some of the most vocal transit activists are seniors who now depend on buses and trains to get around. More Boomers will join them as they realize they can’t drive around like they used to.

In short, all the pieces are there for the shift away from driving to continue, and for public support to grow for spending a lot more money on transit. Republicans will block the way as long as they can, but eventually, the tide will sweep away their opposition to transit. We can only hope that they don’t do too much damage before that happens.