Analysis of ccsf's role and future funding committments to caltrain

bae urban economics
Analysis of CCSF’s Role and Future Funding Commitments to Caltrain
Prepared for City and County of San Francisco
Capital Planning Program
August 20, 2013

bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City
1285 66th
Street 803 2nd
St. Suite A 5405 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 291 1346 U St. NW, Suite 403 121 West 27th
St., Suite 705
Emeryville, CA 94608 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Washington, DC 20009 New York, NY 10001
510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486
www.bae1.com
July 18, 2013
Brian Strong, Director
Capital Planning Program
Office of the City Administrator
City and County of San Francisco
Dear Mr. Strong:
We are pleased to submit the enclosed report, which analyzes the City and County of San
Francisco’s (CCSF) role and future commitments to Caltrain.
We have enjoyed working with you and other CCSF and SFMTA staff.
Sincerely,
Janet Smith-Heimer, MBA
Managing Principal

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ I
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study..........................................................................................................................3
Study Methodology.......................................................................................................................4
Report Organization .....................................................................................................................5
CALTRAIN EARLY INVESTMENT PROGRAM (EIP)....................................................................... 6
Overview of Early Investment Program.......................................................................................6
Estimate of CCSF Future Funding Gaps .....................................................................................7
Risks of ElP to CCSF.................................................................................................................. 10
CALTRAIN ONGOING CAPITAL PROJECTS ................................................................................11
Overview of Ongoing Capital Projects ...................................................................................... 11
Estimate of CCSF Future Funding Gap .................................................................................... 13
Risks of State of Good Repair Projects to CCSF...................................................................... 15
CALTRAIN ONGOING OPERATING SUBSIDY.............................................................................16
Overview of Ongoing Operating Subsidy.................................................................................. 16
Operating Subsidy Formula Options ........................................................................................ 18
SUMMARY OF CCSF FUNDING GAPS FOR CALTRAIN ..............................................................23
Risks and Uncertainties to CCSF.............................................................................................. 25
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS.................................................................................................28
APPENDIX A: EIP FUNDING PLAN ............................................................................................30
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC SOGR COST DETAIL ...........................................................................31
APPENDIX C: OPERATING SUBSIDY DATA................................................................................32
APPENDIX D: BACKGROUND RIDERSHIP & OPERATING DATA................................................34
APPENDIX E: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES.........................................................................37

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This study was commissioned by the City and County of San Francisco (City or CCSF) to evaluate its
future obligations to the Caltrain passenger rail system. The report’s main focus was to estimate
the City’s long-term funding commitments, identify challenges that could impact the City’s ability to
meet these obligations, and identify issues that may impede the future viability of the Caltrain
system. Specifically, this report addresses the following four key topics:
1. CCSF’s future operating and capital funding obligations, and any potential funding gaps
2. Risks that may impact the City’s future obligations
3. Governance structure for ensuring Caltrain’s long-term viability
4. Aligning regional policy objectives with Caltrain policies and practices
Caltrain is a key part of the transportation network between San Francisco, Peninsula communities,
and San Jose/Gilroy, providing daily rail service vital to the corridor’s economic and environmental
health. The railway moves almost 20,500 riders during traditional weekday peak hour commutes
along the system from San Jose and the Peninsula to San Francisco and 14,000 riders in the
reverse direction, enhancing the regional economy.
The region benefits from other aspects of Caltrain as well. By providing a direct transit link, this
lowers regional automobile trips, which in turn reduces carbon and other air pollution emissions.
Additional weekday savings and benefits to the region come from reducing traffic congestion and
commute times, and increasing quality of life by reducing driving stress. On evenings and
weekends, Caltrain also provides transportation to regional entertainment and sporting events,
including those in San Francisco, San Jose, and along the corridor.

ii
CCSF is one of three member agencies which fund and govern the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (JBP). Along with San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and Santa Clara County
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), CCSF contributes operating and capital project funds each
year to operate and maintain the Caltrain system. Each member contributes equal shares for
capital projects. For operating subsidies, each member’s share is the result of a total subsidy
request made by Caltrain staff, allocated to each member based on a negotiated formula reflecting
the average weekday boardings in February, for each county.
Historically, CCSF’s funding contributions to Caltrain have challenged fiscal planning and competed
with other local needs to operate, maintain, and expand San Francisco’s own transportation
system. For example, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has provided
operating subsidies of approximately $6 million to $7 million per year to Caltrain, reducing SFMTA’s
ability to fund needed local services and improvements. CCSF’s Proposition K funds, generated by
a half-cent sales tax approved by San Francisco voters in 2003, provide most of CCSF’s Caltrain
funding for capital investments, also competing with needed other local-serving improvements.
Moreover, in 2012, CCSF’s obligation was further increased by its $60 million commitment to fund
part of the $1.5 billion Caltrain Early Investment Program (EIP) involving system electrification.
METHODOLOGY
In order to assess Caltrain’s potential future funding gaps, BAE Urban Economics followed these
steps:
• Convened kick-off meeting with CCSF Capital Planning Program, SFMTA, Caltrain staff;
SamTrans, VTA, California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA), San Francisco County
Transportation Authority (SFCTA), SF Mayor’s Office, and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) representatives;
• Convened regular meetings with a working group comprised of Capital Planning Program
staff, SFMTA, and the Mayor’s Office;

iii
• Collected information from SFCTA, SFMTA, Capital Planning Program, MTC, and Caltrain
staff; Reviewed all available past budgets, capital improvement plans, board minutes;
correspondence, and environmental reports pertaining to Caltrain’s operating and capital
needs including Electrification;
• Estimated historic funding requests, CCSF payments, future known funding requests, future
allocations of Prop K funds, and remaining gaps for the next ten years; and
• Reviewed formula options to determine JPB member agencies’ potential operating subsidy
allocations, including new policy-based options.
In light of the recent creation of the Mayor’s 2030 Transportation Task Force, which is charged with
identifying transportation capital priorities for the City and connecting these with funding sources,
this report also identifies potential funding sources for the Task Force to consider. These funding
sources, along with revenue estimates for a subset of sources, can be found within Appendix E of
this report.
FINDINGS: FUNDING GAPS
The analysis conducted for this study estimates a total 10-year funding estimated for CCSF’s
contributions to Caltrain of almost $145.8 million (uninflated). This gap includes:
• $40.1 million shortfall for Electrification project (total for 10 years, uninflated)1
• $41.7 million shortfall for State-of-Good Repair projects (total for 10 years, uninflated)
• $64.0 million or more shortfall for operating subsidy (total for 10 years, uninflated)
1 BAE estimated the timing of Electrification project components, because Caltrain is not ready to spread these costs over
time until it further refines the project’s design and delivery schedules during Summer 2013.

iv
FINDINGS: FUNDING RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES
In addition to the quantified funding gap analysis, work for this report found that CCSF faces
substantial risks in meeting its funding obligations to Caltrain, which in turn impact its fiscal
planning, economic vitality, and ability to meet transportation policy objectives. These risks and
challenges from CCSF’s perspective include:
• Structural challenges. Due to the structure of the JPB, with three member agencies
responding to different constituencies and varying local policies, coordination with CCSF
transportation initiatives has been challenging. The JPB structure creates a separation
among the three member agencies, Caltrain staff, and governing Board, with no clear lead
entity incentivized to reduce costs and raise revenues, as all three members are relied
upon to “plug holes” as needed. In CCSF’s case, this is further complicated by the City and
County serving as the member of the JPB, representing multiple local transportation
agencies within CCSF, requiring coordination of multiple budget processes. Also, with a
membership comprised of one county and two transit agencies, there are differences
between the three members’ workflow, policy objectives, and competing local needs.
Significant thought should be given to include San Mateo and Santa Clara counties going
forward to Caltrain governance as well as operating and capital investments.
• Uncoordinated budget preparation processes. CCSF prepares its budget each fiscal year,
effective July 1, beginning the previous December, when the Controller’s Office issues
detailed budget instructions to City departments. Departments then prepare their budget
requests and submit them to the Controller by mid-February. The Controller reviews the
proposed budgets and then turns the consolidated budget proposal over to the Mayor’s
Office of Public Policy and Finance for consideration by March 1st. However, Caltrain makes
its budget requests to member agencies including CCSF several months after this process
is underway, meaning that CCSF cannot easily accommodate or plan for its Caltrain capital
project contributions.

v
• CCSF’s competing needs for limited transportation funds. CCSF faces its own ongoing
major need for both capital and operating funds for local transportation. The SFMTA has
experienced several budget shortfalls in the past decade, has an ongoing structural
operating deficit, and presently estimates a State of Good Repair backlog of over $2.2
billion.2
• Potential increased cost for Early Investment Program (EIP). Although Caltrain expects to
complete the EIP to upgrade system communications and electrify the system within the
2009 cost estimate of $1.46 billion, the project’s specific design and delivery process has
not yet been determined. There is substantial potential risk that the project’s costs will
rise, once specific components are designed and contracted. CCSF could face additional
requests for funding beyond its commitment of $60 million. Moreover, the timing of
funding requests is unclear, dependent on further project refinement. Caltrain expects to
have refined information for the project in Summer 2013.
As a result, the funding of operating subsidies for Caltrain from SFMTA is becoming
increasingly difficult.
• Variable year-to-year SOGR funding requests. Caltrain prepares an annual capital budget
based on a 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP). However, a systematic prioritization of
State of Good Repair projects is not clearly described during this process, meaning that
choices about SOGR spending, and the related requests to member agencies, are not
clearly forecasted year to year. This results in widely varying SOGR contribution requests
from member agencies to fund each year’s SOGR budget. In the past five fiscal years,
requests from member agencies have ranged from less than eight percent to almost 30
percent of total SOGR spending by Caltrain.
• Variable year-to-year operating subsidy requests. In addition, Caltrain’s operating subsidy
request varies each year, depending on the need for operating revenue and the ability of
each member agency to afford the request.
2 Real Estate and Facilities Vision for the 21st Century, SFMTA, 2013

vi
• Potential fluctuations in Prop K revenues. This funding source – which at present is key to
CCSF’s meeting its commitments for both SOGR and portions of the EIP – is generated by
taxable retail sales, which in turn tend to fluctuate with economic cycles. The recent
recession severely dampened taxable sales in San Francisco, highlighting the risk of relying
on this funding source. Although sales tax revenue is rising again, CCSF will continue to
face risks in meeting its transportation needs and Caltrain commitments as sales tax
revenues rise and fall with the broader economic cycle.
POTENTIAL OPERATING SUBSIDY FORMULAS
This study incorporates an analysis of potential new formulas for allocating funding of the JBP
member-contributed operating subsidy. Historically, this formula has been based on a count of
February weekday average AM boardings in each of the three counties. A change in the formula for
FY 2013-14 will be to rely on average weekday (all day) boardings.
In this study, a new operating subsidy formula is proposed that blends the current formula based
on Caltrain ridership with a policy incentive to reduce single automobile trips. BAE worked with
CCSF staff to formulate an approach that would align Caltrain’s operating formula with incentives
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a goal set by legislation passed by the State through the
Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act (SB375). In response to this landmark legislation, the region prepared a draft Plan
Bay Area, a regional strategy for lowering greenhouse gas emissions by supporting a more efficient
land use pattern, and by pairing land use changes with transportation investments. One
performance target established by Plan Bay Area was to increase the region’s share of non-
automobile trips by ten percentage points, so that non-automobile trips account for 26 percent of
the Region’s trips. One way to reinforce this and help the region become more sustainable is to
align transportation funding and policies with the performance targets established in Plan Bay
Area. Since Caltrain is a major recipient of funds from three counties, this provides a unique ability
to tie the operating subsidy formula to the goals of lowering non-automobile trips. The proposed

vii
formula equally weighs Caltrain boardings with each County’s share of non-auto commute trips. A
county that successfully encourages non-auto commutes benefits from paying a lower Caltrain
operating subsidy. This approach is proposed to be phased in over five years.
NEXT STEPS
The following outline recommends next steps for addressing the issues identified in this study, to
close future funding gaps and address the risks and uncertainties described in this report.
Summer 2013
• Present this report to the initial large group convened to kick off the study
• Present report to Mayor’s SF 2030 Transportation Task Force
• Begin discussions on implementing a new operating subsidy formula tied to greater
regional transportation policies and goals
• Work with JPB Board and staff to address risk issues regarding structure and organization,
budget coordination, and budget process questions (especially related to selection of SOGR
projects each year)
o This may require forming a subcommittee of the JPB Board, or other form of cross-
member working group, to develop solutions
o Process should explore alternative budgeting processes for JPB, including
formulating a preliminary budget, a 2-year budget, a 10-year Capital Plan, improved
SOGR prioritization processes, and forecasting member contributions at least one
year ahead of funding request.
• Review Caltrain EIP project design and delivery, update cost model and funding gap
estimates in this study; identify refined CCSF funding commitments in terms of timing,
amounts, and match to proposed new funding sources

viii
Fall 2013
• Upon the issuance of the Mayor’s 2030 Transportation Task Force’s final
recommendations, determine outreach strategy for any sources identified that require voter
approval or legislation action.
• Implement new budget process at JBP to inform upcoming CCSF budget cycle for FY 2014-
15 (commences in December 2013)
Winter/Spring 2014
• Introduce legislation to initiate ballot measures for funding sources recommended by the
Task Force that require voter approval.

1
INTRODUCTION
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) was formed in 1987 to operate the Caltrain rail
system, which provides passenger rail service from Gilroy to San Francisco through the sub-regions
generally known as Silicon Valley and the Peninsula. The JPB is a unique regional transportation
agency, comprised of three members: the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), the San Mateo
County Transit District (SamTrans), and the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA). The JPB is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors, comprised of three
representatives from each county.3
The portion of the Bay Area served by Caltrain contains more than 3.3 million residents and 1.6
million jobs, with vital economic activities depending on daily transportation throughout the corridor
connecting San Jose, Silicon Valley, the Peninsula, and San Francisco. Caltrain, as a key link in this
sub-region’s transportation network, moves almost 20,500 riders during traditional weekday peak
hour commutes along the system from San Jose and Peninsula residential locations, enhancing
San Francisco’s economy by tapping a large, talented regional workforce. In addition, Caltrain
increasingly serves as a bi-directional commuter system, transporting almost 14,000 riders in a
“reverse commute” to job locations elsewhere along the corridor southbound each weekday,
similarly enhancing access to a talented workforce by Peninsula and Silicon Valley employers.
The sub-region benefits from other aspects of Caltrain as well. By providing a direct transit link,
this translates into fewer automobile trips, which in turn lowers carbon and other air pollution
emissions. Additional weekday savings and benefits to the region come from reducing traffic
3 For San Francisco, one member is appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco, one by the Board of Supervisors, and one
by the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA). For San Mateo County Transit District, one member is appointed by the
City Selection Committee, one by the County Transit District, and one by the Board of Supervisors. For Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, all three members are appointed by VTA).

2
congestion and commute times, and increasing quality of life by reducing driving stress. On
evenings and weekends, Caltrain also benefits the three member counties by providing
transportation to regional entertainment and sporting events, including those in San Francisco, San
Jose, and along the corridor.
These economic, social, and environmental benefits have long been recognized by the three
members of the JPB, each of whom contribute scarce financial resources to ensure the continued
operation and make necessary capital investments in the Caltrain system.
Funding for the JPB to maintain and operate the Caltrain system comes from a variety of sources,
including federal and state grants, along with substantial contributions from each of the three
member agencies. It is important to note that the system does not have a dedicated, reliable
regional funding source; instead, Caltrain relies in part on each of its three member agencies to
address operating shortfalls, with each member in turn using a complex set of sources for its
obligations each year. For CCSF, funding to meet its Caltrain obligations has historically placed
some strain on its ability to meet other local transit funding needs. In addition, issues of varying
budget cycles between CCSF, SFMTA, and the JBP, as well as a range of accounting and budgeting
processes, contributes to a lack of clarity and transparency each year for CCSF.
To date, CCSF has relied on two primary sources of funds to meet its Caltrain commitments. For
capital projects providing ongoing investment in the system to maintain a ‘state of good repair,”
CCSF has drawn on allocations from Proposition K, a 2003 voter-approved half-cent local sales tax
intended to finance transportation projects defined in the 30-Year Transportation Expenditure
Plan4
4 This document identified all projects and programs eligible to receive Prop K funding, including set-aside funds for
Caltrain capital improvements and Electrification. The SFCTA administers Prop K, and can accelerate or change when the
funds flow to Caltrain projects within the 30-year period. However, because funding for Caltrain projects is capped, the
SFCTA cannot move funds between programs (i.e. from Transbay Terminal to Caltrain, etc.).
. For operating subsidy commitments, CCSF has drawn on the San Francisco Municipal

3
Transportation Agency (SFMTA) operating budget, because Prop K funds can only be used for
capital projects. SFMTA has been the primary source for Caltrain operating subsidy funds for over
a decade; however, with the SFMTA facing other major unfunded operating and infrastructure
needs within San Francisco (e.g., bus, trolley, subway), a new source of ongoing operating subsidy
funds for Caltrain must be identified. Reliance on SFMTA for this funding is not a sustainable
approach for CCSF.
In addition to these ongoing funding challenges, CCSF has agreed to provide $60 million of the
nearly $1.5 billion investment in Caltrain’s Early Investment Program (for system electrification).
Arranged through the 2012 High Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy Memorandum of
Understanding between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the JPB member
agencies, this commitment marks a key step in preparing the Caltrain alignment to host the
Peninsula segment of the California High Speed Rail system. The Prop K funding source described
is expected to contribute part of the funding commitment made by CCSF for the Early Investment
Program (EIP), but this source will not be sufficient to cover the full $60 million CCSF commitment.
While CCSF policies and commitments clearly recognize the importance of Caltrain to its economy
and transportation network, the level of funding for ongoing operations and capital projects, along
with the increased challenge of the EIP to prepare for high speed rail, have created the need to
prepare a sustainable financing strategy for CCSF’s Caltrain obligations.
Purpose of Study
This study was commissioned by CCSF’s Mayor’s Office and the SFMTA Office of Public Policy and
Finance, and overseen by CCSF’s Capital Planning Program. It was conceived in part as a result of
preparing the FY 2014-2023 Capital Plan, which identifies approximately $25.0 billion of capital
investments needed in the City and County of San Francisco over the next ten years. To expand on
the challenges of Caltrain funding and to create a sustainable plan for the next ten years, further
research and analysis was necessary, leading to this study.

4
The primary purpose of this study is to analyze the historical and ongoing funding obligations of
CCSF’s portion of Caltrain funding needs for both capital and operating costs over the next 10
years. Specifically, the study includes:
• Estimate of potential funding gaps for the next 10 years
• Identification of new or expanded funding mechanisms to fill those gaps
• Exploration of potential operating subsidy formulas which link to policy goals
• Identification of issues needing resolution to more clearly define the financing plan for
Caltrain’s capital investments including electrification (for High Speed Rail)
• Description of next steps for CCSF to help close estimated future funding gaps
Study Methodology
In order to assess Caltrain’s potential future funding gaps and identify new funding sources to fill
those gaps in a sustainable manner, this study followed these steps:
• Convened kick-off meeting with CCSF Capital Planning Program, SFMTA, Caltrain staff,
SamTrans, VTA, CAHSRA, SFCTA, SF Mayor’s Office, and MTC representatives.
• Convened weekly meetings with a working group comprised of Capital Planning Group staff,
SFMTA, and the Mayor’s Office.
• Collected information from SFCTA, SFMTA, Capital Planning Program, MTC, and Caltrain
staff. Reviewed all available past budgets, capital improvement plans, board minutes,
correspondence, and environmental reports pertaining to Caltrain’s operating and capital
needs including Electrification.
• Estimated historic funding requests, CCSF payments, future known funding requests, future
allocations of Prop K funds, and remaining gaps for the next ten years.
• Identified potential new funding sources to meet funding gaps.
• Estimated selected new funding sources’ amounts of revenue generation.

5
• Reviewed formula options to determine JPB member agencies’ operating subsidy
allocation, including new policy-based options.
• Recommended next steps.
Report Organization
The report is organized by chapter to correspond with each of the three categories of funding need
and potential gaps: Caltrain Early Investment Program (EIP), Ongoing Capital Projects, and Ongoing
Operating Subsidies. It provides a summary of background information, analysis of prior funding
requests and allocations/payments, estimates of likely future funding needs, an estimate of
potential future gaps for each category, and recommendations for next steps for CCSF.
Additionally, Appendix E provides an overview of potential sources of new funding which CCSF could
pursue to meet these gaps and 10 year revenue estimates for selected new sources.

6
CALTRAIN EARLY INVESTMENT PROGRAM (EIP)
Overview of Early Investment Program
The Caltrain Early Investment Program (EIP) involves installing advanced communications systems
and electrifying most transit services. The EIP will achieve two simultaneous objectives to improve
transit service: provide a cleaner and more efficient fleet for the existing Caltrain system, and pave
the way for eventual implementation of the California High Speed Rail (HSR) initiative along this
portion of the planned alignment.
Blended System Concept
In 2009, following voter approval of $9 billion to plan and construct the state’s high-speed rail
system, Caltrain entered into an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to work in
partnership to advance Caltrain corridor improvements that would support improved Caltrain
service and high-speed rail service. Caltrain’s coordination with the California High-Speed Rail
Authority is managed through the Caltrain Modernization Program.
To support both Caltrain and HSR on the Peninsula rail corridor, initial project concepts were based
on a four-track rail system that would require track expansion, sparking significant concerns about
impacts to local communities. In 2011, a revised proposal emerged, known as the “blended
system.” This approach will implement a project with less impact along the Caltrain corridor, while
supporting an integrated high-speed rail and modernized Caltrain service on shared tracks in order
to maximize the use of existing infrastructure. Subsequent studies of capacity have supported this
new approach, and the project is currently undergoing environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Caltrain anticipates that a final EIR will be published in the
second half of 2014.

7
CCSF Funding Commitment
In 2012, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) unanimously approved a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was signed by multiple agencies, including the JPB,
the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the SFCTA and other local governments. The
MOU enabled a series of actions by agencies that resulted in the full funding of the advanced
signal system upgrade, and outlined a $1.456 billion financing proposal from a mix of federal,
state, regional, and local funds to pay for Electrification (see Appendix for sources). The JPB
pledged $180 million, which will be contributed in equal portions by CCSF, SamTrans, and Santa
Clara VTA. CCSF’s portion of this commitment is $60 million.
Nearly $20 million of CCSF’s $60 million contribution to the EIP is set to come from advancing Prop
K funds, plus a credit from prior funds paid by CCSF to Caltrain.5 This amount could fluctuate due
to changes in the timing requirements for the payments, or if Prop K revenue varies from current
projections. If Prop K revenues are achieved as forecasted, this still leaves an unfunded
commitment by CCSF of just over $40 million
Estimate of CCSF Future Funding Gaps
In order to understand the timing and amount of funding to be contributed by CCSF to the
Electrification Project, BAE analyzed several sources of information regarding the costs and timing
of project delivery. These sources included information about project components and timing,
drawn from the July 2009 Caltrain Electrification Program Environmental Assessment/Final
Environmental Impact Report, 6
5 Communication from Maria Lombardo and Lee Saage, SFCTA, to Plans and Programs Committee, October 30, 2012, Letter from
Caltrain to Steve Hemminger, MTC, 4-1-13..
as well as more detailed and current cost estimates provided by
Caltrain staff for one of the first components known as the Communications-Based Overlay Signal
System (CBOSS), commonly referred to as the Advanced Signal System. BAE then developed its
6 The 2009 Caltrain Electrification Program Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report has not yet been certified.

8
own estimate of the EIP project costs over time to derive funding gap estimates. However, during
the period of finalizing this report, Caltrain provided an updated rough estimate of EIP costs and
JPB funding needs for the next 10 years; these updated Caltrain estimates are shown in this final
report.
Caltrain expects to further refine its rough timing of project costs when the EIP is refined during
Summer 2013 to formulate project design and type of construction delivery methods. According to
Caltrain, this refinement process may shift the separate State-of-Good Repair sequence of
expenditures, accelerating some SOGR projects which benefit from their relationship to EIP
components.
Funding levels by each of the three member agencies in the JPB were outlined in a Memorandum
from the SFCTA to the Plans and Programs Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
dated October 30, 2012. This memo led to the advancement of additional Prop K funds for FY
2012-13 through FY 2014-15, to cover CCSF’s contributions for the CBOSS component of the ElP
over the next several years. However, at the time of this report, CCSF was still working to identify
approximately $7.0 million to cover its remaining CBOSS obligation. In addition, research for this
report indicated that a prior $4 million funding swap from regional air quality funds will be credited
by Caltrain for a portion of CCSF’s EIP contribution, likely in FY 2015-16.
BAE’s estimates of the EIP project and potential funding gaps for CCSF are summarized on the
following page. In general, as the project costs and timing are refined, it should be noted that the
total cost of the EIP project may fluctuate. While the total EIP cost was estimated at $1.456 billion
by Caltrain staff during the 2009 environmental review process, and Caltrain is committed to
keeping the project total at the planned number, it is uncertain if this goal will be achievable.
Reasons for CCSF concern include the outdated age of this project estimate, the changes in land
use and land use plans for the areas where electrification equipment will be installed, changes in
potential project delivery and/or technology, and initial cost estimate’s lack of inflation
assumptions beyond a 2015 delivery date.

9
Table 1: Summary of CCSF Caltrain Electrification Project Funding Surplus (Gap)
($s in thousands)
FY 2012-13
and prior FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Total
Total EIP Program Costs (a)
Communications-Based Overlay Signal System (CBOSS) (a) 28,200$ 47,300$ 113,501$ 30,712$ 11,241$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 230,954$
Electrification System Costs (a) 24,000$ 3,250$ 10,100$ 37,250$ 222,600$ 258,000$ 334,150$ 269,605$ 66,545$ 1,225,500$
Total 52,200$ 50,550$ 123,601$ 67,962$ 233,841$ 258,000$ 334,150$ 269,605$ 66,545$ 1,456,454$
% Completed 3.58% 7.05% 15.54% 20.21% 36.26% 53.98% 76.92% 95.43% 100.00%
Required CCSF Contribution
CCSF Portion of JPB Amount for CBOSS (b) 3,000$ 6,390$ 10,237$ 3,747$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23,375$
CCSF's Portion of JPB Amount for Electrification System Costs (b) -$ 76$ -$ 7,287$ 8,526$ 11,191$ 8,932$ 613$ 36,625$
Total Required from CCSF 3,000$ 6,466$ 10,237$ 11,034$ 8,526$ 11,191$ 8,932$ 613$ -$ 60,000$
Sources of CCSF Funds
Prop K Funds © 3,000$ 6,390$ 6,470$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,860$
CMAQ/RIP (d) -$ -$ -$ 4,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000$
Total 3,000$ 6,390$ 6,470$ 4,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19,860$
CCSF Funding Surplus (Gap) -$ (76)$ (3,767)$ (7,034)$ (8,526)$ (11,191)$ (8,932)$ (613)$ -$ (40,140)$
Cumulative Funding Surplus (Gap) -$ (76)$ (3,844)$ (10,878)$ (19,404)$ (30,595)$ (39,527)$ (40,140)$ (40,140)$
Notes:
(a) Caltrain estimated the costs and timing of funds needed for CBOSS and electrification in a letter to Steve Heminger, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission dated March, 29, 2013.
The annual cash flows estimated for CBOSS are based on contactual milestone payments with the contractor implementing CBOSS, while the electrification timing needs represent Caltrain's best estimates.
(b) Caltrain estimated the costs and timing of funds needed for CBOSS and electrification in a letter to Steve Heminger, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission dated March, 29, 2013.
The annual cash flows estimated for CBOSS are based on contactual milestone payments with the contractor implementing CBOSS, while the electrification funding needs represent Caltrain's best estimates.
(c) Funds available from Prop K are based on a memorandum from SFCTA dated 10/30/12 that contains a schedule showing all Prop K funds available for CBOSS and electrification.
(d) This funding was secured by a swap in 2008 between San Francisco's Regional Improvement Program funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
funds provided to the electrification project and was documented in letter from Caltrain to Steve Hemmnger, MTC, dated 4-1-13 re: San Francisco's funding committement to EIP.
Source: Caltrain, 2013; SFCTA, 2012; BAE, 2013.

10
Risks of ElP to CCSF
Several risks and aspects of uncertainty related to the Electrification project are present for CCSF.
These include:
• Refined project design and delivery schedules may result in increased total project costs
• The timing and amount per year of Electrification costs are not known, so CCSF cannot yet
plan on what years it will need to provide large amounts of funding (BAE cost spread per
year is very rough)
• Project design may lead to accelerated State of Good Repair costs in near-term, to save
money over long term (if SOGR project can be completed more efficiently during
Electrification process). While this may represent long-term savings to CCSF and the other
JPB members, it may also complicate fiscal planning by CCSF.

11
CALTRAIN ONGOING CAPITAL PROJECTS
Overview of Ongoing Capital Projects
The operation and maintenance of Caltrain’s existing service requires substantial investment in
ongoing capital needs. These costs are covered by the State of Good Repair (SOGR) rehabilitation
program that is designed to ensure the performance of Caltrain’s facilities and fleet by replacing
assets at the end of their useful/service life. Examples of projects include system-wide
infrastructure upgrades, signal and track rehabilitation, rolling stock replacement, and safety
improvements. Unlike the Early Investment Program for electrification, which involves a one-time
contribution from member agencies, SOGR requires annual ongoing contributions from the JPB
member agencies. It should be noted that in addition to the SOGR projects, Caltrain also funds a
contingency for capital projects through this same category.
SOGR projects are planned as part of the Caltrain Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) which includes a
10-year capital improvement plan. The most recent SRTP was published in 2009, and is scheduled
to be updated in 2013 (updated every four years). The most recent listings from the 2009 SRTP
show a total of $3.4 billion for capital projects needed for the next 10 years.
Each budget year, Caltrain staff reviews the SRTP, prioritizes those capital projects that are most
needed, estimates available funding amounts from federal and state sources based on interaction
with the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTC), and then requests JPB member agencies’
contributions based on remaining funding needs. Historically, SOGR projects have totaled roughly
$25 million to $35 million per year, depending on the number and cost of projects Caltrain
estimates that it can undertake, the level of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds it receives,
and how much each of the JPB members can afford to contribute. The total member agency
contribution is then allocated equally to each of the three member entities, so that each
contributes one-third of the total member contribution.

12
It should be noted that, on an annual basis, Catrain SOGR requests and resulting member
contributions range widely (see table on next page). While FY 2011-12 member contributions were
reduced due to the recession and less available funding, other years also vary widely. As one
measure, total member contributions to the SOGR program range from a low of seven percent to a
high of almost 30 percent across the years shown.
Historic CCSF Contributions
The table on the next page summarizes the historic amount of funding requested from and
contributed by each member of the JPB including CCSF. Appendix B shows the detailed breakdown
of projects funded by these member agencies’ contributions for FY 2009-10 through 2013-14. As
shown below, the average contribution for SOGR requested of CCSF was $3.74 million for this time
frame, including both SOGR and a small capital contingency fund.

13
Table 2: Historic Contributions for State of Good Repair (SOGR) Projects, FY 2008-09 to FY 2012-13
FY 2008-09 (a) FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 (b) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Average
State of Good Repair (SOGR)
CCSF 3,235,900$ 5,204,020$ 2,670,000$ 2,403,100$ 3,548,056$ 3,412,215$
SamTrans 3,235,900$ 5,204,020$ 2,670,000$ 2,403,100$ 3,548,056$ 3,412,215$
Santa Clara VTA 3,235,900$ 5,204,020$ 2,670,000$ 2,403,100$ 3,548,056$ 3,412,215$
Subtotal 9,707,700$ 15,612,060$ 8,010,000$ 7,209,300$ 10,644,169$ 10,236,646$
Capital Contingency Fund
CCSF 320,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 328,000$
SamTrans 320,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 328,000$
Santa Clara VTA (c) 370,000$ 380,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 348,000$
Subtotal 1,010,000$ 1,040,000$ 990,000$ 990,000$ 990,000$ 1,004,000$
Total - SOGR + Capital Contingency
CCSF 3,555,900$ 5,534,020$ 3,000,000$ 2,733,100$ 3,878,056$ 3,740,215$
SamTrans 3,555,900$ 5,534,020$ 3,000,000$ 2,733,100$ 3,878,056$ 3,740,215$
Santa Clara VTA 3,605,900$ 5,584,020$ 3,000,000$ 2,733,100$ 3,878,056$ 3,760,215$
Total JPB Sources 10,717,700$ 16,652,060$ 9,000,000$ 8,199,300$ 11,634,169$ 11,240,646$
Total Capital Budget 150,774,900$ 82,336,042$ 33,392,086$ 60,726,816$ 39,093,085$ 73,264,586$
JPB Sources, as % of Total Capital Budget (d) 7.1% 20.2% 27.0% 13.5% 29.8% 15.3%
Notes:
(a) Caltrain fiscal year from July 1 through June 30th.
(b) JPB Member Agency contributions in 2011 were lower than the amount forecasted in Caltrain's approved budget. The 2011 approved capital budget shows
an annual member contribution of $4,578,159. Each member contributed $1,578,159 less than requested.
(c) Santa Clara VTA contributed an additional $50,000 in 2009 and 2010 to pay for capital contingency costs ssociated with Caltrain service to Gilroy.
(d) BAE calculated JPB sources as a % of the total capital budget. Annual capital budget varies depending on funding and project needs.
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 (b) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Average
Federal Funds 16.4% 46.5% 36.8% 67.2% 49.4% 43.3%
State Funds 57.1% 25.7% 19.2% 13.6% 17.4% 26.6%
Other Sources 19.4% 7.5% 2.9% 5.7% 3.5% 7.8%
JPB Member Contributions 7.1% 20.2% 27.0% 13.5% 29.8% 19.5%
JPB Shortfall 0.0% 0.0% 14.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: Caltrain; BAE, 2013.

14
Estimate of CCSF Future Funding Gap
The table below provides allocations already identified by SFCTA through its Proposition K
forecasts, and matches these against SOGR future needs, as provided by Caltrain to CCSF (see
footnote in table below for information provided by Caltrain. It is important to note that the SOGR
estimates from Caltrain have not been documented, and represent a substantial increase in SOGR
needs by Caltrain compared to the historic pattern shown on the prior page. BAE utilized an
average of these Caltrain SOGR estimates to prepare the funding gap analysis, rather than reflect
the widely varying costs from year to year without better documentation.
Table 3: State of Good Repair (SOGR) Funding Surplus (Gap), CCSF Obligation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
Sources - Prop K per SFCTA
Allocation (a)
EP 7 Caltrain CIP 150,000$ 837,114$ 853,856$ 870,933$ 888,352$ 906,119$ 924,241$ 942,726$ 961,580$ 435,423$
EP 17P Vehicles 1,000,000$ 745,281$ 778,818$ 813,865$ 850,489$ 888,761$ 928,756$ 970,550$ 1,014,224$ 1,059,864$
EP 20P Rehab Upgrade Facilities -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
EP 22P Caltrain Guideways 1,300,000$ 800,000$ 836,000$ 873,620$ 912,933$ 954,015$ 996,946$ 1,014,808$ 1,088,689$ 1,137,680$
Total 2,450,000$ 2,382,395$ 2,468,674$ 2,558,418$ 2,651,774$ 2,748,895$ 2,849,943$ 2,928,084$ 3,064,493$ 2,632,967$
Uses - CCSF Contribution (SOGR +
Capital Contingency Fund) (b) 4,800,000$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$ 7,068,889$
Surplus (Gap) (2,350,000)$ (4,686,494)$ (4,600,215)$ (4,510,471)$ (4,417,115)$ (4,319,994)$ (4,218,946)$ (4,140,805)$ (4,004,396)$ (4,435,922)$
Cumulative Surplus (Gap) (2,350,000)$ (7,036,494)$ (11,636,709)$ (16,147,180)$ (20,564,295)$ (24,884,288)$ (29,103,234)$ (33,244,039)$ (37,248,435)$ (41,684,357)$
a) Prop K allocations for Caltrain capital projects from SFCTA per 2009 allocation forecast. Will be revised in 2013.
Note: Future Prop K allocations can be adjusted from year to year, but total over life of Prop K is capped for these categories.
b) FY 2013-14 contribution based on the actual request made by Caltrain to JPB members for FY 2013-14. Future years' contributions are taken from Caltrain's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) submitted
to MTC in preparation for the RTP, and represent an average of actual SOGR needed for FY 2014-15 through FY 2022-23. It should be noted that Caltrain's CIP projections are uneven, and show higher
contributions needed for FY 2014/15 through FY 2016/17 to pay for costs associated with prior year's deferred improvements, new rolling stock, and bridge rehabs.
See below for anticipated SOGR needs by year, as projected by Caltrain. Information to document or provide reasons for the timing rationale by Caltrain have not been provided to CCSF.
FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Avg.
CIP Annual Funding Need from JPB 50,458.000$ 49,874.000$ 58,111.000$ 4,130.000$ 3,090.000$ 3,149.000$ 3,209.000$ 3,272.000$ 15,567.000$ 21,206.667$
JPB Member Contribution (1/3 share) 16,819.333$ 16,624.667$ 19,370.333$ 1,376.667$ 1,030.000$ 1,049.667$ 1,069.667$ 1,090.667$ 5,189.000$ 7,068.889$
Sources: Caltrain; SFCTA; BAE, 2013.

15
It should be noted that SFCTA, which administers Prop K, is able to advance future funds slated for
Caltrain capital projects in order to close nearer-term funding gaps; however, the total funding that
can be allocated by SFCTA is capped by the language of Prop K. Moreover, advancing Prop K funds
for Caltrain capital improvements ahead of its pro rata share of tax revenue collected, incurs
financing costs that reduce the total amount of funds for this category. The SFCTA applies 25
percent of the future allocation as a charge to advance the funds.
Risks of State of Good Repair Projects to CCSF
There are several risks and aspects of uncertainty which impact CCSF’s fiscal planning for its
contribution to SOGR projects:
• Unclear methods used to prioritize SOGR projects from year to year by Caltrain
• Uneven forecasts of JBP contributions needed for SOGR projects
• Unknown impacts of EIP project refinement on SOGR projects (which may be undertaken
simultaneously, and/or may provide overall cost savings)
• The method of “backing into member contributions” after deducting federal and state
funding, and after evaluating what one or more member agencies can afford
• Preparing funding requests after CCSF has drafted its next two-year budget, creating a last-
minute scramble
The above issues result in difficult fiscal planning for CCSF. The Recommended Next Steps section
in this report suggests re-aligning this process to provide a longer-term forecast of SOGR projects,
costs, and member contribution needs, so that CCSF can identify funds and incorporate this
funding commitment into its annual capital budget.

16
CALTRAIN ONGOING OPERATING SUBSIDY
Overview of Ongoing Operating Subsidy
In addition to capital needs, the Caltrain system requires member agencies to contribute funds
each year to support ongoing operations. While farebox revenue and grants contribute a
substantial portion of operating funds, contributions by member agencies are also a key
component of meeting ongoing operating costs. Since FY 2009-10, Caltrain has received an
average of $31.7 million per year in operating subsidies from the three member agencies.
In 1999, the JPB members agreed to a formula for calculating each member’s share of the
operating subsidy. Each member’s share was calculated based on a February count of weekday
morning peak-hour passenger boardings, per county of origin. In fiscal year 2006, member
agencies agreed to an annual increase of 3 percent in operating contributions over the prior year.
In 2009, the increases were discontinued as a result of the financial crisis that constrained
member agency revenues.7 In FY 2012-13, Samtrans was able to increase its contributions,
resulting in the other member agencies also increasing their contributions. Most recently, all three
members agreed to shift to a slightly different formula for FY 2013-14, away from AM peak
boardings to count instead, all day weekday boardings in the same week in February, by county. At
present, this formula includes the extended Caltrain service to Gilroy.
The shift from AM peak boardings to weekday all day boardings reflects a shift in ridership
patterns, with increases in non-traditional commute direction from San Francisco workers traveling
south, as well as trips occurring throughout the day.
7 Memorandum from Gigi Harrington to Michael Burns and Ed Reisken, Membership Agency Operating Contribution Methodology, dated
January 31, 2013.

17
Historic CCSF Contributions
Based on the formula outlined above, applied each year to Caltrain operating subsidy needs, the
table below shows the historic amount of each JPB member agency’s contribution. Between FY
2008-09 and FY 2013-14, the average operating subsidy contribution requested of CCSF was $5.8
million. It should be noted that this average is affected by a reduced member agency request for
FY 2011-12, when SamTrans experienced fiscal challenges, and all three member agencies’
contributions were reduced proportionately as a result.
Table 4: Historic Member Agency Contributions for Caltrain Operating Subsidy, FY 2008-09 to FY 2013-14
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Average
Operating Subsidy to Caltrain
CCSF 7,017,165$ 7,017,165$ 6,246,946$ 4,510,684$ 5,800,000$ 4,500,881$ 5,848,807$
SamTrans 16,521,290$ 16,521,290$ 14,707,875$ 10,620,000$ 14,000,000$ 5,440,000$ 12,968,409$
VTA 15,878,130$ 15,878,130$ 14,135,309$ 10,206,572$ 13,700,000$ 7,290,668$ 12,848,135$
Total Agency Contributions 39,416,585$ 39,416,585$ 35,090,130$ 25,337,256$ 33,500,000$ 17,231,549$ 31,665,351$
Contribution Rates
CCSF 17.80% 17.80% 17.80% 17.80% 17.31% 26.12% 19.11%
SamTrans 41.91% 41.91% 41.91% 41.91% 41.79% 31.57% 40.17%
VTA 40.28% 40.28% 40.28% 40.28% 40.90% 42.31% 40.72%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

18
Operating Subsidy Formula Options
Due to the changes in commute patterns since the operating subsidy formula was created, the
three member agencies agreed to re-visit the formula in Spring 2013, resulting in an agreement for
FY 2013-14 to allocate the Caltrain operating subsidy on the basis of average weekday (all day)
boardings. CCSF also proposed in that meeting to revisit this formula again, prior to the next fiscal
year, and try to integrate a more policy-based approach to the formula.
This section explores some basic allocation methods for this operating subsidy among the three
members of the JPB, along with a more policy-based approach.
Methodology to Develop Options
In order to develop refined formula options for operating subsidy contributions, at the request of
CCSF, BAE explored a series of “simple” methods based on readily-available metrics, as well as a
policy-based method which better incorporates regional transportation and sustainable
development policies. Supporting data used for the calculations are included in Appendix F.
Simple Allocation Methods
BAE prepared several “simple” allocation methods, which use basic, available metrics including
track length in each county, population in each county, and number of jobs in each county, as
described below.
• Track Length Per County – This is a relatively common method to allocate costs for many
types of linear infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer pipes, etc.). It would reduce CCSF’s share
of the total subsidy significantly, due to the shorter length and more compact geography of
San Francisco’s development pattern. It also reflects the average cost per mile to operate
the rail system, which is one basic measure of performance. This approach, however, does
not reflect utilization of the system or policies regarding sustainable development.

19
• Population per County – This simple method allocates operating subsidy simply on the
number of residents in each county. It would be easy to use (e.g., California Department of
Finance estimates county population each year, and can be adjusted during official Census
years), and has the benefit of spreading subsidy across the entire “market” of potential
riders, including to those riding to work and as well as for other purposes.
• Jobs per County – This measure would tie the allocation to share of jobs present in each
County, which reflects the primary utilization of Caltrain as a means of transportation to
work.
Policy-Based Method
In addition to the above simple allocation methods, BAE worked with the SFMTA and other CCSF
staff to formulate policy-based methods which incorporate a key transportation goal across the
region: to encourage non-automobile trips.
This common goal is set through a series of legislative and policy actions across the region.
Starting with AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, through SB 375, California’s
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, the stage has been set to organize
regional land use planning and transportation investments to support a more sustainable pattern,
emphasizing less reliance on single-automobile commuting through major transit investments,
transit-oriented development, and policies to encourage jobs-housing balance. Achievement of this
goal will bring vital benefits to the region, including reduced traffic congestion, lower CO2 and other
air pollution emissions, increased economic efficiencies in terms of reduced commute times and
commute stress, and the ability to absorb additional economic growth while also improving quality
of life.
These legislative initiatives have recently been captured through the Plan Bay Area process, which
released a Draft Plan Bay Area in April, 2012. This Plan, our region’s Sustainable Communities
Strategy as required by SB 375, created a regional blueprint that outlines how the nine-county Bay
Area will sustainably accommodate future growth for the next 30 years. Between 2010 and 2040,

20
the Region is expected to add 2.1 million new residents and 1.1 million new jobs, with over 53
percent of new jobs in the nine-county region estimated to be located in the area served by Caltrain
(e.g., San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties) by 2040.
Plan Bay Area achieves greenhouse gas reduction targets by pairing more efficient land use
patterns with transportation investments. One major tenet of Plan Bay Area is to accommodate
virtually all new development within the existing urbanized footprint. The Plan directs growth to
jurisdictions that have expressed a willingness to accept more housing and employment, including
major cities and priority development areas (PDAs). In addition, to achieve the sustainable
development pattern envisioned, the Plan matches growth with transportation infrastructure that
prioritizes public transit use, walking, and biking. Plan Bay Area outlines a transportation strategy
to achieve this, directing funds towards maintaining existing assets while also supporting focused
initiatives in strategic growth areas. As noted in the Plan, Caltrain is a key component of achieving
the goals; EIP investments in Caltrain represent the sixth largest capital investment in the region for
the planning period to achieve its goals. Caltrain’s organizational structure, comprised of three of
the region’s nine counties, presents a unique opportunity to strengthen Plan Bay Area’s goal of
reducing non-auto trips.
In the policy-based approach proposed below, the Caltrain operating subsidy formula would shift
from system utilization, as represented by boardings (current formula), to an approach that rewards
each JPB member based on its lowered contribution to the three-county’s number of undesired
single-auto commute trips. A county that successfully encourages non-auto commute trips and
reduces its share of single-drivers within the 3-county region would benefit by paying a lower
portion of the total operating subsidy. This approach aligns the region’s sustainable policies with
the way the formula would be structured.
Table 5 on the next page shows this method, with supporting data included in the Appendices.

21
Table 5: Summary of Operating Subsidy Methods
Assumes method is applied to $32,000,000 operating subsidy request (historic average of total requested each year
% Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount
CCSF 26.1% 8,358,400$ 6.4% 2,046,100$ 24.4% 7,795,753$ 26.7% 8,549,109$ 15.8% 5,071,322$ 21.0% 6,714,861$
SamTrans 31.6% 10,102,400$ 26.4% 8,451,100$ 21.7% 6,955,567$ 22.1% 7,082,796$ 23.8% 7,618,678$ 27.7% 8,860,539$
VTA 42.3% 13,539,200$ 67.2% 21,502,800$ 53.9% 17,248,680$ 51.2% 16,368,095$ 60.3% 19,310,000$ 51.3% 16,424,600$
Total 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$
Notes:
a) Agreed to by JBP staff on conf call on 4-19-13 and described in letter from Caltrain dated 4-29-13. This method measures boardings for an average weekday during
a week in February and allocates the total request by county, including Gilroy extension stations.
b) Based on length of trackage in miles in each county, as calculated by BAE using ArcView GIS.
c) Total population for each county from US Census 2010.
d) Based on proportion of total jobs in each county, as reported by California Employment Development (EDD) in Current Employment Statistics program, 2011.
f) Based on allocating share of all commuters not driving alone to work, within 3 county region (rewards county for higher non-single driver commuters).
Expressed as a "credit" for higher rates of non-single drivers, by subtracting single drivers commuting from 1.
See Appendix for commute mode data.
f) Based on average of Method A + E. This methold could be a phase out stage for current formula/phase in for policy-based formula in Column E.
Sources: US Census, 2010; Caltrain, 2012; CA EDD, Current Employment Statistics Program (June 2012 Benchmark), 2013; Memo from Caltrain (1-31-2013);
American Community Survey, 2011; BAE, 2013.
Average Weekday
Boardings (a)
Combined ApproachPolicy-Based Method
Current Method
(FY 13/14)
A
Average of Methods A & E (f)2011 Jobs by County (d)
Simple Allocation Methods
2010 Population by
County (c)
C D E F
Single Driver
Commuters by
County (e)Track Length (b)
B

22
Additionally, this report recommends phasing-in the new policy based formula over the next five
years to allow counties to gradually adjust to the new methodology. Table 6 provides a “phased in”
version of the policy approach, which uses the application of a weighted average over the next five
years to shift the operating subsidy formula from its current methodology (which relies solely on
weekday boardings) to a new formula based on the average of weekday boardings and the
percentage of single auto trips within each county. Based on Table 5 above, Approach “F” would be
in effect at the end of the five-year phase-in period
Table 6: Summary of Policy-Based Credit Methodology (Phased-in Approach)
Assumes method is applied to $32,000,000 operating subsidy request (historic average of total requested each year
% Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount
CCSF 26.1% 8,358,400$ 24.1% 7,700,984$ 23.0% 7,372,277$ 22.0% 7,043,569$ 21.0% 6,714,861$
SamTrans 31.6% 10,102,400$ 30.0% 9,605,656$ 29.2% 9,357,283$ 28.5% 9,108,911$ 27.7% 8,860,539$
VTA 42.3% 13,539,200$ 45.9% 14,693,360$ 47.7% 15,270,440$ 49.5% 15,847,520$ 51.3% 16,424,600$
Total 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$ 100.0% 32,000,000$
Notes:
a) Current method measures boardings for average weekday during a week in February.
b) Policy method based on allocating a credit based on share of all commuters not driving alone to work, within the 3 county region (rewards
county for higher non-single driver commuters).
Sources: Caltrain, 2012; Memo from Caltrain (1-31-2013); America Community Survey, 2011; BAE, 2013.
Weighted Average
(60% Current /40% Policy)
Average
(50% Current /50% Policy)
Year 1 (a) Year 5 (a) (b)Year 2 (a) (b) Year 3 (a) (b) Year 4 (a) (b)
Current Weekday
Boarding Method
Weighted Average
(80% Current / 20% Policy)
Weighted Average
(70% Current / 30% Policy)
Policy-Based Credit Method Phased-In Approach
FY 2018-19FY 2017-18FY 2016-17FY 2015-16FY 2014-15

23
SUMMARY OF CCSF FUNDING GAPS FOR CALTRAIN
The table on the next page summarizes the estimated funding gaps for CCSF’s contributions to
Caltrain over the next 10 years, including funds needed for the Early Investment Program, the
estimated State of Good Repair project needs, and the annual operating subsidy assuming a
phased-in shift from boardings to the policy-based method. The total funding gap over the 10 year
period is $145.9 million (uninflated).

24
Table 7: Summary of CCSF Estimated Funding Gaps, FY 2013-14 - FY 2022-23
($s in thousands)
FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
Early Investment Program (CBOSS + Elec)
CCSF Contribution Request (a) (6,466,337)$ (10,237,333)$ (11,034,000)$ (8,526,000)$ (11,191,000)$ (8,932,000)$ (613,333)$ -$ -$ -$
CCSF Funding (b) 6,390,000$ 6,470,000$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Surplus (Gap) (76,337)$ (3,767,333)$ (7,034,000)$ (8,526,000)$ (11,191,000)$ (8,932,000)$ (613,333)$ -$ -$ -$
Cumulative Surplus (Gap) (76,337)$ (3,843,670)$ (10,877,670)$ (19,403,670)$ (30,594,670)$ (39,526,670)$ (40,140,003)$ (40,140,003)$ (40,140,003)$ (40,140,003)$
State of Good Repair (SOGR) Projects
CCSF Contribution Request (c) (4,800,000)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$ (7,068,889)$
CCSF Funding (d) 2,450,000$ 2,382,395$ 2,468,674$ 2,558,418$ 2,651,774$ 2,748,895$ 2,849,943$ 2,928,084$ 3,064,493$ 2,632,967$
Net Surplus (Gap) (2,350,000)$ (4,686,494)$ (4,600,215)$ (4,510,471)$ (4,417,115)$ (4,319,994)$ (4,218,946)$ (4,140,805)$ (4,004,396)$ (4,435,922)$
Operating Subsidy
CCSF Contribution Request (e) (4,500,881)$ (8,358,400)$ (7,700,984)$ (7,372,277)$ (7,043,569)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$
CCSF Funding (f) 4,500,881$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Surplus (Gap) -$ (8,358,400)$ (7,700,984)$ (7,372,277)$ (7,043,569)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$ (6,714,861)$
Cumulative Surplus (Gap) (8,358,400)$ (16,059,384)$ (23,431,661)$ (30,475,230)$ (37,190,091)$ (43,904,952)$ (50,619,813)$ (57,334,674)$ (64,049,535)$
Total Estimated Funding Surplus (Gap) (2,426,337)$ (16,812,227)$ (19,335,199)$ (20,408,748)$ (22,651,684)$ (19,966,855)$ (11,547,140)$ (10,855,666)$ (10,719,257)$ (11,150,783)$
Notes:
a) San Francisco's required flow of funds for CBOSS and electrification were estimated by SFCTA, in coordination with Caltrain, and assumes a design, bid, build construction contract for electrification.
b) Funding sources for EIP: SFCTA Prop K Expenditure Forecast, 2009 (currently being updated). Also, the $4M shown for 2015-16 represents prior year CCSF funds from CMAQ that will be credited to EIP by Caltrain in that year..
This $4M credit is outlined in a letter from Caltrain to MTC dated 4-1-13.
c) FY 2013/14 figure is based on current SOGR request from Caltrain to San Francisco. Future years' SOGR contributions are based on actual SOGR needs estimated by Caltrain and submitted to MTC,
and represent an average of SOGR needs for FY 2014/15 through FY 2022-23. It should be noted that Caltrain's CIP future needs estimates are very uneven year to year, with a substantial jump foreseen from JPB members
for FY 2014/15 through FY 2016/17 to pay for higher costs associated with deferred needs to replace non-electric rolling stock and bridge rehabs. See Table X for detail.
d) Source of fudning: SFCTA Prop K per 2009 Expenditure Forecast (currently being updated). See Appendix for detail by project category.
e) FY 2013-14 is based on actual request from Caltrain. FY 2014-15 and onward based on proposed phased-in approach described in this report, blending the current formula with an incentive adjustment to align with
the proposed policy-based formula. This combined approach is phased in until FY 2018-19, when the new policy-based formula is fully in effect.
All estimates shown for contrbution requests assume the split between three members is appplied to $32M total, which is the historic average of Caltrain request total for opertating subsidy, although this varies each year.
f) Source of funding for FYI 2013-14 not yet identified, but assumed will be from SFMTA budget as in past years.
Sources: Caltrain; SFCTA; BAE, 2013.

25
Risks and Uncertainties to CCSF
In addition to the quantified funding gap analysis estimated above, research for this study
indicated that CCSF faces significant risks and uncertainty in meeting its funding obligations to
Caltrain, which in turn impact its fiscal planning, economic vitality, and ability to meet
transportation policy objectives. These risks include:
• Structural challenges. Due to the structure of the JBP, with three member agencies
responding to different constituencies and varying local policies, coordination with CCSF
transportation initiatives has been challenging. The JPB structure creates a separation
among the three member agencies, Caltrain staff, and governing Board, with no clear lead
entity incentivized to reduce costs and raise revenues, as all three members are relied
upon to “plug holes” as needed. In CCSF’s case, this is further complicated by the City and
County serving as the member of the JPB, representing multiple transportation agencies
within CCSF, requiring coordination of multiple budget processes. Also, with a membership
comprised of one county and two transit agencies, there are differences between the three
members’ workflow, policy objectives, and competing local needs.
• Uncoordinated budget preparation processes. CCSF prepares its two-year budget each
fiscal year, effective July 1, beginning with preparations the previous December. By March
1, CCSF’s Controller’s Office has forwarded a consolidated proposed budget to the Mayor’s
office for further public and elected officials’ review. Caltrain makes its budget requests to
member agencies including CCSF several months after this process is underway, meaning
that CCSF cannot easily accommodate or plan for its Caltrain capital project contributions.
• CCSF’s competing needs for limited transportation funds. CCSF faces its own ongoing
major need for both capital and operating funds for local transportation. The SFMTA has
experienced several budget shortfalls in the past decade, has an ongoing structural
operating deficit, and presently estimates a State of Good Repair backlog of over $2.2

26
billion.8 As a result, the funding of operating subsidies for Caltrain from SFMTA is growing
increasingly infeasible.
• Potential increased cost for Early Investment Program (EIP). Although Caltrain expects to
complete the EIP to upgrade system communications and electrify the system within the
2009 cost estimate of $1.46 billion, the project’s specific design and delivery process has
not yet been determined. There is substantial potential risk that the project’s costs will
rise, once specific components are designed and contracted. CCSF could face additional
requests for funding beyond its commitment of $60 million. Moreover, the timing of
funding requests is unclear, dependent on further project refinement. Caltrain expects to
have refined information for the project in Summer 2013.
• Variable year-to-year SOGR funding requests. Caltrain prepares an annual capital budget
based on a 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP). However, a systematic prioritization of
State of Good Repair projects is not clearly described during this process, meaning that
choices about SOGR spending, and the related requests to member agencies, are not
clearly forecasted year to year. This results in widely varying SOGR contribution requests
from member agencies to fund each year’s SOGR budget. In the past five fiscal years,
requests from member agencies have ranged from less than eight percent to almost 30
percent of total SOGR spending by Caltrain.
• Variable year-to-year operating subsidy requests. In addition, Caltrain’s operating subsidy
request varies each year, depending on the need for operating revenue and the ability of
each member entity to afford the request.
8 Real Estate and Facilities Vision for the 21st Century, SFMTA, 2013

27
• Potential fluctuations in Prop K revenues. This funding source – which at present is key to
CCSF’s meeting its commitments for both SOGR and portions of the EIP – is generated by
taxable retail sales, which in turn tend to fluctuate with economic cycles. The recent
recession severely dampened taxable sales in San Francisco, highlighting the risk of relying
on this funding source. Although sales tax revenue is rising again, CCSF will continue to
face risks in meeting its transportation needs and Caltrain commitments as sales tax
revenues rise and fall with the broader economic cycle.

28
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
The following outline recommends next steps for addressing the issues identified in this study, to
close future funding gaps and address the risks and uncertainties described in this report.
Summer 2013
• Present this report to the initial large group convened to kick off the study
• Present report to Mayor’s SF 2030 Transportation Task Force
• Begin discussions on implementing a new operating subsidy formula tied to greater
transportation policies and goals
• Work with JPB Board and staff to address risk issues regarding structure and organization,
budget coordination, and budget process questions (especially related to selection of SOGR
projects each year)
o This may require forming a subcommittee of the JPB Board, or other form of cross-
member working group, to develop solutions
o Process should explore alternative budgeting processes for JPB, including
formulating a preliminary budget, a 2-year budget, a 10-year Capital Plan, improved
SOGR prioritization processes, and forecasting member contributions at least one
year ahead of funding request.
• Review Caltrain EIP project design and delivery, update cost model and funding gap
estimates in this study; identify refined CCSF funding commitments in terms of timing,
amounts, and match to proposed new funding sources
Fall 2013
• Upon the issuance of the Mayor’s 2030 Transportation Task Force’s final
recommendations, develop and implement an outreach strategy for any recommended
source that requires voter approval or legislation action.

29
• Implement new budget process at JBP to inform upcoming CCSF budget cycle for FY 2014-
15 (commences in December 2013)
Winter/Spring 2014
• Introduce legislation to initiate ballot measures for funding sources recommended by the
Task Force that require voter approval.

30
APPENDIX A: EIP FUNDING PLAN
Appendix A-1: EIP Proposed Funding Plan

31
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC SOGR COST DETAIL
Appendix B-1: Cost Detail, State of Good Repair Projects, FY 2009 - FY 2012
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average
A. State of Good Repair
Stations and Intermodal Access
South Terminal Station Improvements 480,000$ 4,225,000$ -$ -$ -$
Systemwide Station Improvements - SOGR 1,000,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 400,000$ 500,000$
Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal 1,480,000$ 4,825,000$ 500,000$ 400,000$ 500,000$ 1,541,000$
Right of Way/Signal & Communications
System-wide Track Rehabilitation Program 650,000$ -$ 652,336$ 1,050,000$ 588,000$
Wide Spectrum (Data) Radio ATCS Implementations 415,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Railroad Signal System Rehab 140,000$ -$ 900,000$ -$ 540,000$
Caltrain Visual Messaging System - Update 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Maintenance of Caltrain Engineering Standards 435,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Operations Control Center Replacement -$ 260,000$ -$ -$ -$
Quint St. and Jerrold Bridges Replacement -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$
Los Gatos Creek Bridge Replacement & Guadalupe Env. -$ 400,000$ 280,000$ 1,000,000$ -$
North South Road Channel -$ -$ -$ 70,300$ -$
Train Dispatcher Voice Communication System Upgrade -$ -$ -$ -$ 345,600$
Voice Radio System Rehab -$ -$ -$ -$ 110,000$
San Mateo Bridges Replacement - Design -$ -$ -$ -$ 240,000$
Railroad Comunication System SOGR -$ -$ -$ -$ 204,300$
Upgrade Public Address at 22nd St, SSF, Snyvl, Diridon -$ -$ -$ -$ 800,000$
Subtotal 1,676,000$ 1,260,000$ 1,832,336$ 2,120,300$ 2,827,900$ 1,943,307$
Rolling Stock
Rolling Stock Equipment 2,450,900$ -$ 5,600,000$ -$ -$
Parking Machine Replacement Program 380,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$
PCI Compliance & Network Security Improvements 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
F40 Locomotive Overhaul -$ 1,031,215$ -$ -$ -$
Gallery Car State of Good Repair Program -$ 401,978$ -$ -$ -$
Overhaul/Replacement F40 SEP-HEP Units -$ 1,838,667$ -$ -$ -$
MP36 Radiators -$ 231,000$ -$ -$ -$
Repair Gallery Car Bolster -$ 310,000$ -$ -$ -$
Traction Motors & New Wheel Sets for F40 -$ 110,000$ -$ -$ -$
Gallery Car SOGR -$ -$ -$ 2,901,621$ -$
Bombardier Car SOGR -$ -$ -$ 637,379$ -$
Locomotiev O/H - SOGR -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,605,256$
Passenger Car SOGR Program -$ -$ -$ -$ 394,744$
Subtotal 3,051,700$ 3,922,860$ 5,600,000$ 3,539,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,822,712$
Legal Mandates and Required Infrastructure Enhancements
Narrow Banding Project -$ 700,000$ 606,141$ -$ -$
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard -$ -$ 291,000$ -$ -$
Update of Suicide Prevention Signs -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ -$
ADA on Caltrain - Increase Capacity -$ -$ -$ -$ 59,848$
South Terminal Wayside Power -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$
Railsim Modeling Software Upgrade -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Dual Mode Communications -$ -$ -$ -$ 242,000$
Station Utilities and Asset Maps -$ -$ -$ -$ 992,421$
Subtotal -$ 700,000$ 1,007,141$ -$ 2,894,269$ 920,282$
Caltrain 2015/2025
Caltrain 2025 Implementation Program 3,500,000$ 3,340,000$ -$ -$ -$
Caltrain Service Reliability Plan -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$
Caltrain Rolling Stock Procurement Plan and Specification -$ 114,200$ -$ -$ -$
PRP - Program Implementation & Management -$ -$ 2,805,000$ 150,000$ 422,000$
Subtotal 3,500,000$ 3,654,200$ 2,805,000$ 150,000$ 422,000$ 2,106,240$
Caltrain Support Program and Capital Contingency
Capital Program Management -$ 500,000$ 434,050$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Capital Project Development -$ 750,000$ 565,950$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Subtotal -$ 1,250,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 850,000$
State of Good Repair Subtotal 9,707,700$ 15,612,060$ 12,744,477$ 7,209,300$ 10,644,169$ 11,183,541$
B. Caltrain Capital Contingency
Capital Contingency - Engineering 300,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$
Capital Contingency - Rail Services 660,000$ 660,000$ 660,000$ 660,000$ 660,000$
Capital Contingency Subtotal 960,000$ 990,000$ 990,000$ 990,000$ 990,000$ 984,000$
Capital Contingency - Gilroy 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$
Total 10,717,700$ 16,652,060$ 13,734,477$ 8,199,300$ 11,634,169$ 12,187,541$

32
APPENDIX C: OPERATING SUBSIDY DATA
Appendix C-1: Data for Simple Allocation Methods
Avg. Weekday Boardings Track Length Population
Feb 2012 Avg.
Weekday (All Day)
Boardings (a)
Percent
of Total Miles (b)
Percent
of Total
2010
Population (c)
Percent
of Total 2011 Jobs (d)
Percent
of Total
San Francisco County
4th and King 9,670 0.0
22nd Street 1,252 1.5
Bayshore 165 3.4
Subtotal 11,087 26.2% 4.9 6.4% 805,235 24.4% 422,700 26.7%
San Mateo County
South SF 389 4.2
San Bruno 432 2.4
Millbrae 2,880 1.9
Broadway 1.6
Burlingame 749 1.2
San Mateo 1,477 1.6
Hayward Park 327 1.0
Hillsdale 2,097 1.5
Belmont 454 1.7
San Carlos 1,004 1.2
Redwood City 2,399 2.1
Subtotal 12,208 28.8% 20.3 26.4% 718,451 21.7% 350,200 22.1%
Santa Clara County
Atherton 2.4
Menlo Park 1,471 1.0
Palo Alto 4,661 1.4
Stanford Stadium 0.6
California Avenue 1,069 1.0
San Antonio 611 2.4
Mountain View 3,670 2.1
Sunnyvale 1,965 2.7
Lawrence 606 2.1
Santa Clara 715 3.5
College Park 85 1.4
San Jose Diridon 3,187 1.1
Tamien 653 2.0
Capitol 27 3.0
Blossom Hill 66 3.5
Morgan Hill 113 11.5
San Martin 43 3.9
Gilroy 116 6.2
Subtotal 19,058 45.0% 51.6 67.2% 1,781,642 53.9% 809,300 51.2%
Grand Total 42,353 100.0% 76.8 100.0% 3,305,328 100.0% 1,582,200 100.0%
Notes:
a) Average weekday boardings from Caltrain Annual Ridership Counts, February 2012.
b) System length estimated by BAE using ArcView (GIS)
c) Popuation from US Census 2010
d) Jobs from State of California CES data published annually. Shows average for the year.
Source: BAE, 2013.
Jobs

33
Appendix C-2: Mode of Transportation to Work, 2011
Means of Transportation (a) San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Region
# % # % # % # % San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Total
Drove Alone (incl. Motorcycle) 168,682 38.6% 253,412 71.1% 642,288 76.9% 1,064,382 65.3% 15.8% 23.8% 60.3% 100.0%
Not Driving Alone
Carpooled 32,015 7.3% 38,390 10.8% 83,370 10.0% 153,775 27.2% 20.8% 25.0% 54.2% 100.0%
Bus 102,994 23.6% 13,932 3.9% 18,201 2.2% 135,127 23.9% 76.2% 10.3% 13.5% 100.0%
Streetcar 7,769 1.8% 463 0.1% 1,820 0.2% 10,052 1.8% 77.3% 4.6% 18.1% 100.0%
Subway or Elevated 22,493 5.1% 9,680 2.7% 833 0.1% 33,006 5.8% 68.1% 29.3% 2.5% 100.0%
Railroad 4,658 1.1% 5,454 1.5% 7,784 0.9% 17,896 3.2% 26.0% 30.5% 43.5% 100.0%
Bicycle 15,016 3.4% 4,202 1.2% 15,334 1.8% 34,552 6.1% 43.5% 12.2% 44.4% 100.0%
Walked 43,121 9.9% 9,193 2.6% 18,546 2.2% 70,860 12.5% 60.9% 13.0% 26.2% 100.0%
Other Means 6,116 1.4% 3,347 0.9% 7,375 0.9% 16,838 3.0% 36.3% 19.9% 43.8% 100.0%
Worked at Home 34,261 7.8% 18,480 5.2% 40,124 4.8% 92,865 16.4% 36.9% 19.9% 43.2% 100.0%
Subtotal Not Driving Alone 268,443 61.4% 103,141 28.9% 193,387 23.1% 564,971 34.7%
Total 437,125 100.0% 356,553 100.0% 835,675 100.0% 1,629,353 100.0%
Notes:
(a) The American Community Survey (ACS) publishes demographic estimates based on statistical sampling conducted continuously in 2011.
Universe includes all workers age 16+, incuding military.
Sources: American Community Survey, 2011; BAE, 2013.
Share of Total

34
APPENDIX D: BACKGROUND RIDERSHIP & OPERATING DATA
Appendix D-1: Average Weekday (All Day) Passenger Boardings, February 2004 – February 2012
25,550
28,393
32,031
33,840
36,994
39,123
36,778 37,779
42,354
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Feb 04 Feb 05 Feb 06 Feb 07 Feb 08 Feb 09 Feb 10 Feb 11 Feb 12

35
Appendix D-2: Caltrain System wide Commute Patterns, February 2004 – February 2012
Notes:
(a) Tradiitonal peak refers to northbound morning and southbound evening commutes.
(b) Reverse peak refers to southbound morning and northbound evening commutes.
76%
91%
4%
57%
66%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Traditional Peak (a)
Reverse Peak (b)
Midday
Night
Total Average Weekday
Total Average Weekend

36
Appendix D-3: Farebox Recovery, FY 2004- FY 2012
29.0%
31.3%
39.7%
42.6% 44.2%
47.9% 48.2%
51.3%
57.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Farebox Recovery

37
APPENDIX E: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
This report shows that additional funds will be needed to meet CCSF’s commitments to Caltrain for
Electrification, ongoing State of Good Repair capital projects, and operating subsidies. In light of
the recent creation of the Mayor’s 2030 Transportation Task Force, which is charged with
identifying transportation capital priorities for the City and connecting these with funding sources,
this report includes a high level overview of potential funding sources for the Task Force to
consider. These sources were identified through a range of approaches including:
• Discussions with CCSF staff
• National and international literature review to identify innovative funding mechanisms for
rail and major infrastructure projects
• Review of several brainstorming lists generated by JPB agency members
• BAE’s experience working with CCSF departments and agencies, as well as across the US
on similar funding studies
The underlying approach to this research was to identify new sources of funds which would
increase available revenues for Caltrain, in order to eliminate competing with other extensive
transportation funding needs in San Francisco. The chart on the following pages summarizes the
findings of the research. If the Task Force chooses to pursue any of these options, deeper analysis
of the funding vehicle would be required.
BAE evaluated these funding options in conjunction with CCSF staff and selected five mechanisms
with the greatest potential for generating substantial new funds (at least roughly $1 million per
year), as well as a general “fit” with other CCSF fiscal and economic development initiatives.

38
Appendix E-1: Potential Funding Options for CCSF Caltrain Funding Gaps
Source Description Notes
Taxes & Fees
Commuter
Transportation Tax
Example from NY/NJ metro. Tax on business
payroll > $1.2M. Levied on all areas served by MTA
and regional transit providers. Known as the
Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.
SF recently changed its payroll tax to gross receipts
tax.
Parcel Tax Apply a uniform flat tax on all real property (or
certain categories), and dedicate funding to San
Francisco's commitment to Caltrain. Requires 2/3
voter approval
SF recently passed a $79 parcel tax to fund City
College, expected to generate $14 million per year for
8 years. Other parcel taxes apply, including a
$33.30/parcel for the SF Unified School District
(generates $7 million per year for 20 years), and a
$213.90/year parcel tax for SF Teacher Support.
Real Estate Transfer
Tax
Increase real estate transfer tax rate. Transfer tax is
imposed when real estate is sold or transferred from
one entity to another. Transfer taxes go to the
General Fund, and accounted for 4% of CCSF GF
revenue in 2011.
The current transfer tax rates are 0.68% for properties
less than $1M, 0.75% for properties between $1-5M,
2% for properties between $5-10M, 2.5% from
properties over $10M. Total transfer tax revenue to
CCSF in FY 2010-11 was $135M.
Vehicle License Fee
Increase
SB 1492, signed in 2012, allows City of San
Francisco to restore fee to pre-2004 level of 2% of
vehicle value.
Estimate this will generate as much as $55 million
annually for CCSF. Requires voter approval (may be
on ballot in Fall 2014). Funds targeted to other projects
(proposed uses do not include Caltrain).
Sales Tax Increase Add to the current sales tax rate, which is 8.75% in
San Francisco, including Prop K, which funds
Caltrain and many other local transportation
improvements.
Sales tax rate in SF = 8.75%. CA base rate is 7.50%.
SF charges an extra 0.50% for Prop K (transportation),
0.50% for BART, and 0.25% for SF County Public
Finance Authority. Requires voter approval to increase.
Tax /Fee on Auto Sales
Sector
Levy tax or fee on car sales sector in San
Francisco.
Preliminary legal research suggests gross receipts
adjustment for this sector would work legally in CCSF.
Requires voter approval.

39
Transit Impact
Development Fee/TSP
Fee charged to new development projects. Must
have nexus to projects. CCSF has existing TIDF on
non-residential development only. From $9.65-
$12.06 per square foot, depending on the use.
The City is modifying its TIDF to create Transit
Sustainability Program and TSP fee. Applies only to
new development and can only be used to pay for
capital costs serving new development (residents and
workers).).Fee includes allocation for Caltrain
Electrification (2% of total for BART and Caltrain
Electrification)
Value Capture
Assessment District Create an assessment district for properties that
benefit from proximity to Caltrain stations.
Additional cost to tax payer. Examples used for rail:
Portland, Seattle.
Works well where capital investment benefits major
property owners. Votes needed vary by type of district
(e.g., Mello-Roos Community Facilities District,
Transportation Benefit District, etc.)
Tax-Increment
Financing (TIF)
Captures increment of property tax above base (no
additional cost to tax payer). Capability eliminated
through dissolution of redevelopment agencies, but
underlying legal structure remains.
Pending legislation to create successor to
redevelopment agencies at transit stations. Last effort
was vetoed by Governor, but many believe another
attempt will pass. For Caltrain, most likely applicable to
station improvements.
Infrastructure Finance
District
Similar to tax increment, but more limited
applicability. Specifically for infrastructure. No
additional cost to tax payer. Requires 2/3rds vote of
affected property owners.
CCSF is exploring IFDs for other infrastructure needs.
Sale/ Lease of Real
Estate Assets for
Development
Caltrain owns several assets with development
potential. Caltrain leases trackage rights to 4
th
and
King site (yard and station) with substantial
development potential (may require relocation of
existing storage).
SFMTA’s Real Estate Vision estimates sale of five
properties could yield $26M to $50 M. Planning
Department study of 4
th
/King property estimates value
at $148 M to $228 M, but land is not owned by Caltrain
or CCSF, so value capture would be complicated.
Values depend on obtaining feasible entitlements.
User Fees
Surcharge on
Sports/Entertainment
Tickets
Add small surcharge to entertainment and sporting
event tickets in CCSF benefiting from regional
Caltrain service.
Common in some other cities. May not need voter
approval (further analysis by City Attorney needed).
Transit Pass Transfer
Fee
Charge fee to transit users transferring from one
provider to another.
Works against regional policies to encourage transit
ridership.

40
Other Local Strategies
Grant Funds from CA
Carbon Cap & Trade
Program
State will grant portion of funds from California
Cap and Trade Program to fund local CO2
reduction projects.
The first sale occurred in 2012. CA is currently shaping
criteria for grant program. Caltrain EIP will reduce CO2
emissions, making some portion of it possibly eligible
for grant funding from this source..
Infrastructure Trust/Bank Establish a trust fund that combines public and
private capital into infrastructure bank. Some
models can issue tax-exempt debt financing for
infrastructure projects
The Chicago Infrastructure Trust is organized as a not-
for-profit, blending both public and private funds. Other
examples include Canada’s P3C, European
Infrastructure Bank, etc. Requires revenue stream to
pay back private investors.
Redirect Prop K Funds to
Caltrain ElP
SFCTA currently imposes a 25% charge to
recipient if the payment is borrowing from future
programmed funds (to discourage this practice
and reflect potential bond issuance costs).
Spending for Caltrain is also capped by current
voter-approved expenditure plan. Since Caltrain
EIP may need to request advancement of funds,
incurring this 25% fee, both the fee and the cap
could be revisited in light of EIP needs.
Requires working closely with SFCTA and other
partners to change fee policy and/or shift fund
formulas. Requires voter approval to amend the
expenditure plan if total for Caltrain EIP were raised.
Regional Strategies
Advertising Program (on
Caltrain)
Joint regional JPB effort to wrap trains (similar to
Portland MAX).
Could generate $500,000 annually or more, depending
on program based on Portland MAX generating
$200,000)
Concession Program Could be used to attract food kiosks, food trucks,
small retailers
Done successfully at various scales across US at
transit stations
Develop Joint Renewable
Energy Power Plant for
Regional Transit
This strategy would lower fuel costs and emissions
by jointly developing a renewable energy source to
power transit including Caltrain and BART.
Under discussion
Increase Bridge Tolls Raise bridge tolls on Bay Area bridges Requires regional voter approval
High-Occupancy Toll
(HOT) Lanes
Charges single occupancy vehicles to use HOV
lanes
Used in other regions to generate revenues from
“premium” service

41
ESTIMATES FOR A SAMPLE OF POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
The preceding chart provides an extensive set of potential funding options to fill the gaps identified
in this study. It is important to note that portions of the analysis of funding gaps, particularly the
part related to Caltrain EIP, may shift substantially over the period through FY 2022-23, as Caltrain
prepares project design and delivery schedules.
To analyze the impact of potential new funding options, four options were selected for further
estimation. These options were selected due to their ability to generate useful order-of-magnitude
dollars, their “fit” with CCSF policies, and their relationship to beneficiaries of Caltrain services. The
selected options include:
• Commuter Transportation Tax – This mechanism is in place in the New York City metro
region (including portions of New Jersey), and provides substantial revenues to the regional
commuter rail system. Known as the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax,
the mechanism imposes a small tax on private employers with payroll above $1.2 M per
year. This approach is intended to align taxation policies with the beneficiaries of the
transportation network – companies with commuting workforces – without the
administrative challenge of determining actual commute rates or changes in an employer’s
workforce commute patterns over time.
In San Francisco, where the business tax system was recently modified through Measure E,
which switched the basis of the tax from payroll to gross receipts, this mechanism could be
modified to align with gross receipts. For purposes of estimating potential revenue, care
was taken to assume a very small tax rate; the analysis shown assumes a 0.025 percent
tax rate (which would be in addition to the range of 3.0 to 5.0 percent gross receipts tax in
place currently, depending on the industry sector of the business). Based on an analysis of
the number of firms with gross receipts above $1.2 M (to match the NY approach), this
mechanism could generate annual (un-inflated) revenues of $7.2 M or more. Due to the

42
need to obtain voter approval, the timing of this revenue stream is shown on the next page
as commencing for the FY 2015-2016 period.
• Flat Parcel Tax ($20 per parcel excluding non-taxable parcels) – This mechanism has
experienced some voter approval success, and is relatively easy to administer. It would
require a 2/3rds voter approval, but has been estimated at a very low rate, increasing its
potential success. In addition, it could be combined with other non-Caltrain related
infrastructure improvement needs of CCSF, and packaged as an investment with citywide
benefits for all property owners. This mechanism could generate an estimated $4.1 M per
year (un-inflated) starting in FY 2015-16 if it received voter approval.
• Auto Sales Sector Gross Receipts – In keeping with the approach recently enacted in CCSF,
with different industry sectors taxed on gross receipts at varying rates (from 3 to 7 percent),
this mechanism refines that approach with a policy focus to levy a small charge to
automobile owners. This mechanism would require 2/3rds voter approval, and should also
be assessed to ensure it does not create an undue burden on sales of this sector, since the
products sold represent an important component of taxable retail sales in San Francisco.
Care was taken to set the rate relatively low for this mechanism (at 0.5 percent of gross
receipts); and as a result, this mechanism would yield approximately $927,000 annually.
The estimate does not propose to tax auto parts retailers or mechanics services.
• Regional Sports/Entertainment Ticket Surcharge – This mechanism is used successfully in
other situations to defray the added fiscal burden of a core city serving as the regional
sports and entertainment venue for a larger region, and is often implemented as a
surcharge on the parking garages or lots serving the event attendees. In this case,
because the events in San Francisco benefit the region and draw from the subsidized costs
by CCSF of Caltrain service, the approach was taken to charge a small flat fee for each
ticket. Data is only partially available to estimate the potential attendees to regional-
attraction events. BAE relied on a combination of live performance categories from a recent

43
study of San Francisco nightlife (conducted by the City), along with an estimate of
attendance at AT&T Park. The combination of these two identifiable segments, with a
surcharge of $1.00 per attendee’s ticket, would generate $9.7 M per year. The estimate
shown does not include the proposed Warriors stadium venue, but this could be included
through a timely development agreement item. This surcharge may be implementable
through Board of Supervisors action without seeking voter approval, and could take effect
in FY 2014-15,9 although it is likely that voter approval would be required.
The table on the following page provides an estimate of the amount of funding that could be
generated by these four funding sources over the 10-year period. As indicated, the combination of
these four sources could generate $186 M or more, closing the funding gap incurred by EIP,
operating subsidy, and capital projects.
In summary, these four mechanisms, none of which reduce current funding for other San Francisco
transportation projects, could generate $186 million or more over the 10-year period if
implemented as shown, exceeding the identified funding gap (see estimates on following page).
The timing of revenues will depend on the sequencing of implementation, but appears to offer a
workable mix of well-timed revenue sources. It should be noted that the rates assumed for
estimating purposes, as well as the mix of these four mechanisms, could be varied to lower the
total, raise the total and eliminate the need for all four mechanisms, or the additional funds
generated through implementation could be used for related transportation needs such as the
Downtown Extension of Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal.
9 Consultation with the City Attorney’s Office (personal communication, 3-18-13), identified that further legal research is
necessary to conclude that no voter approval is necessary.

44
Appendix E-2: Estimate of Potential Revenue from Selected Funding Options
FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Total
Total Estimated Funding Surplus (Gap) (2,426,337)$ (16,812,227)$ (19,335,199)$ (20,408,748)$ (22,651,684)$ (19,966,855)$ (11,547,140)$ (10,855,666)$ (10,719,257)$ (11,150,783)$
Funding Sources:
Commuter Transportation Tax (a) -$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 7,227,086$ 57,816,690$
Flat Parcel Tax @ $20 per Parcel (b) -$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,130,000$ 33,040,000$
-$
Auto Sales Sector Gross Receipts Tax (c) -$ 926,718 926,718 926,718 926,718 926,718 926,718 926,718 926,718 7,413,742$
-$
Regional Sports/Ent. Ticket Surcharge (d) -$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 9,761,500$ 87,853,500$
Total -$ 9,761,500$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 22,045,304$ 186,123,932$
Cumulative Total -$ 9,761,500$ 31,806,804$ 53,852,108$ 75,897,412$ 97,942,716$ 119,988,020$ 142,033,324$ 164,078,628$ 186,123,932$
Notes:
See Appendix F for detailed calculations and assumptions.
a) This option assumes only firms with annual payroll exceeding $1.2 M would be subject to the tax. Tax rate assumed = 0.25% of payroll (gross reciepts proxy)
b) Assumes approximately 206,500 assessor's parcels (recorded). Has not been adjusted for parcels owned by non-profits or public agencies.
c) Assumes 0.25% tax on all taxable auto sales per total taxable auto sales as reported by State Board of Equalization per last 4 quarters available (4Q 2010 - 3Q 2011), and 84% of all non-fuel/parts, car-related sales are automobile sales,
according to the 2007 Census of Retail Trade.
d) Reflects $1 ticket surcharge on all sports and entertainment tickets for San Francisco events. Sports tickets include all Giants home games, assuming 81 sold out games. Entertainment includes live theater and concerts. Ticket sales
based on data from the Office of the Controller 2012 report, The Economic Impact of San Francisco's Nightlife Businesses, which estimates 6.4 million spending customers for live theater and other performances.
Does not include propopsed Warriors stadium events.
Source: BAE, 2013.

45
Appendix E-3: Data for Commuter Transportation Tax
Estimated Annual Payroll, San Francisco Firms that Meet the Minimum Annual Payroll Threshold, 2010
Employment Size Class
Employees (#) 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 1000 or more Total (d)
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -$
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -$
Utilities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -$
Construction -$ -$ -$ 174,283,171$ 131,252,791$ 219,948,063$ 90,248,960$ 45,056,928$ 90,316,511$ 751,106,424
Manufacturing -$ -$ -$ -$ 36,632,489$ 22,753,099$ 26,090,220$ -$ -$ 85,475,808
Wholesale trade -$ -$ -$ 190,133,317$ 109,534,108$ 64,941,171$ -$ 94,958,423$ 180,536,455$ 640,103,473
Retail trade -$ -$ -$ -$ 165,806,814$ 196,315,268$ 81,103,219$ 18,949,350$ 79,145,119$ 541,319,769
Transportation and warehousing -$ -$ -$ 38,443,139$ 49,971,487$ 63,245,163$ 15,432,371$ 63,566,671$ -$ 230,658,831
Information -$ -$ 229,597,656$ 462,277,161$ 356,944,008$ 635,300,898$ 596,997,933$ 151,010,539$ 541,304,542$ 2,973,432,736
Finance and insurance -$ 653,349,603$ 830,687,353$ 1,460,822,703$ 1,250,697,812$ 1,600,586,867$ 1,509,644,431$ 1,674,298,104$ 2,476,027,471$ 8,073,511,000
Real estate, rental and leasing -$ -$ -$ 182,833,194$ 107,642,054$ 104,001,219$ 51,604,867$ 159,088,623$ -$ 605,169,957
Professional, scientific, and technical services -$ -$ 698,737,844$ 1,213,849,701$ 1,127,731,310$ 1,182,879,050$ 709,127,998$ 480,444,709$ 1,777,815,261$ 7,190,585,872
Management of companies and enterprises -$ -$ 48,742,464$ 190,952,621$ 138,594,644$ 327,806,462$ 329,011,633$ 269,154,816$ 966,279,179$ 1,971,037,000
Administrative and support services -$ -$ -$ 176,546,873$ 210,670,934$ 274,474,131$ 192,798,630$ 187,242,474$ 488,108,348$ 1,529,841,390
Educational Services -$ -$ -$ -$ 58,373,374$ 122,634,845$ 117,085,145$ 90,013,435$ 239,178,556$ 627,285,355
Health care and social assistance -$ -$ -$ 366,478,344$ 227,541,633$ 359,348,007$ 124,413,893$ 146,591,337$ 1,124,076,636$ 2,348,449,849
Arts, entertainment, and recreation -$ -$ -$ -$ 43,742,041$ 85,682,939$ 66,192,000$ 45,221,551$ 71,531,102$ 312,369,633
Accommodation and food services -$ -$ -$ -$ 226,299,363$ 181,389,091$ 90,896,238$ 103,692,528$ 77,270,767$ 679,547,987
Other services (except public administration) -$ -$ -$ -$ 114,501,996$ 98,702,441$ 23,358,980$ 22,105,047$ 89,781,603$ 348,450,068
Industries not classified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -$
Subtotal, Payroll for Firms that Meet the Minimum Annual Threshold 28,908,345,154$
Commuter Tax Rate 0.025%
Estimated Annual Commuter Tax Revenue 7,227,086$
Notes:
(a) The average pay per employee by industry was calculated by dividing Q1 2010 payroll figures by all full- and part-time employees on payroll in the pay period including March 12, 2010.
(b) Average number of employees by size class by industry available at the state level only.
(c) Average not available by industry for establishments with over 1000 employees. This figure reflects the state average for all establishments with over 1000 employees.
(d) Total annual payroll capped at the industry maximum for San Francisco if calculated payroll exceeds the reported total.
Sources: US Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2010; BAE, 2013.

46
Appendix E-4: Data for Auto Sales Sector
Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Total
Taxable Sales - Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers (a) 109,286,863$ 108,203,685$ 115,270,209$ 108,533,398$ 441,294,155$
Less: Portion attributable to parts (b) (70,607,065)$
Portion Attributable to car sales 370,687,090$
Gross Receipts Tax (c) 0.25%
Estimated additional gross receipts on motor vehicle sales 926,718$
Notes:
a) Total taxable auto sales as reported by the State Board of Equalization per last 4 quarters available (4Q 2010 - 3Q 2011).
(b) 84% of car-related sales are new and used automobile sales, and 16% attributable to parts, according to the 2007 Census of Retail Trade.
(c) Assumes tax is 0.25% of adjusted car sales (proxy for gross receipts on new and used car dealer gross receipts).
Sources: CA State Board of Equalization; BAE, 2013.

47
OTHER JPB REVENUE-GENERATING AND COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES
In addition to revenue-generating mechanisms, this study summarizes other approaches to
lowering JPB member contributions, by lowering operating and capital costs for the JPB. Some of
these approaches will require further research and discussion among JPB members to frame the
amount and timing of savings or other measures.
• Maximize Farebox Revenues – Specific analysis for this strategy is beyond the scope of this
study. While the JPB has a good track record of maximizing farebox revenue, the JPB could
likely benefit from an annual or bi-annual review of all farebox pricing policies with its
member representatives, to ensure that a common understanding of steps taken or not
taken is reached.
• Maximize Asset Management – This strategy includes focused attention on the 4th and King
station in San Francisco, which was recently analyzed by the San Francisco Department of
Planning through a consultant study, completed in 2012, which estimated a range of
residual land values between $148 million to $228 million, with a higher value attributed to
a “boulevard” development scheme. The estimates do not include the costs or benefits of
relocation Caltrain facilities or replacing Highway 280, and do not isolate potential value
that would accrue to the landowner vs. Caltrain. Other revenue-generating ideas include
charging market rates for parking, implementing a modest concession program at stations,
and developing an advertising program.
• Joint Renewable Energy Power Facility – A recent idea is the creation of a joint power
generation facility using renewable energy sources to generate electricity, to be shared by
transit agencies in the region, including BART and Caltrain. This idea may be particularly
useful to Caltrain when its system is electrified.
• Merge with BART – Finally, several leading policy-makers in the region have proposed to
study a merger of BART with Caltrain, so that the talent, overhead, and operating
efficiencies can be maximized, and costs reduced.

Analysis of ccsf's role and future funding committments to caltrain

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Analysis of ccsf's role and future funding committments to caltrain (20)

More from Adina Levin (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis of ccsf's role and future funding committments to caltrain