Transit Coordination and Project Delivery Reforms Advance at Transit Task Force

The August 26, 2025 California Transit Transformation Task Force’s (TTTF) hearing made progress on important recommendations for transit coordination and capital project reform.

These topics had been discussed earlier in the Task Force’s work and faced pushback from agencies. In August, supported by comments from transit riders and supporters around the state, there was overall support for recommendations, with some questions and debate. There is only one more meeting scheduled for the Task Force to make its final recommendations.

The Task Force was created by the State Legislature in 2023 as part of a budget deal providing one-time funding to keep transit running. The Task Force was given a broad mandate to study and make recommendations about policies and funding to grow transit ridership statewide to advance the state’s climate and housing goals.  

Before November of this year, the Task Force will send a final report with key findings and policy recommendations to the State Legislature. 


Transit Coordination as a Statewide Policy - Bay Area setting the trend

In the Bay Area, with 27 agencies, transit riders are acutely aware of the need for more coordinated and integrated transit service. Seamless Bay Area’s nearly decade-long campaign to improve interfaces between the 27 different agencies has catalyzed progress on initiatives that are starting to increase ridership. 

Unfortunately, the first time the Task Force reviewed draft recommendations for state policies to foster coordinated fares, schedules and wayfinding, several of the Bay Area’s institutions were absent, ironically due to a conflict with Bay Area meetings on transit coordination. In the absence of Bay Area representation, there was vocal pushback from agencies in other regions, questioning the importance of integration in building ridership.  

At the August meeting, staff took a step back and teed up a broader conversation, asking the Task Force to comment on the respective roles for local agencies, the region, and the state with regard to coordination. Public comments from transit riders around the state highlighted the need for transit coordination. Riders called out the lack of coordinated bus service between Los Angeles and Orange counties despite integrated local economies. Others called out the lack of schedule and fare coordination between regional rail and local bus systems in the San Fernando Valley, Inland Empire and other Southern California regions. 

Prior to the August meeting, the Bay Area’s agencies had sent a letter which helped start the conversation in a more positive direction. The letter stressed the need for state support so regions can coordinate:

One area of opportunity for the state would be to provide tools and services that can be deployed across multiple operators, saving taxpayer funds through economies of scale. For example, operating fare discount validation programs or procuring data tools would be beneficial to transit agencies statewide. Additionally, the Bay Area’s expansion of integrated, universal transit pass programs has been incredibly successful at increasing transit ridership and providing enhanced mobility and access for key populations, including university and college students. Given these programs’ potential to increase transit ridership, supporting transit pass programs through state level funding and facilitation, where appropriate, would advance statewide mobility and climate goals.

At the August meeting, Task Force members broadly supported the strategies as articulated by staff and MTC. Juan Matute of UCLA stressed how the lack of coordination between LA and Orange county had the practical effect of isolating many communities from economic opportunity. MTC’s Alix Bockleman emphasized how Bay Area transit agencies have begun to collaborate to improve schedules and how the rest of California could benefit from their experience. 

Sharon Cooney of MTS, who had been harshly critical in the earlier meeting, had toned down the criticism. Michael Pimentel, the head of the influential California Transit Association, remarked that coordination policies were less important than funding, but did not oppose the direction.

Staff will return at the next meeting with recommendations for Task Force review and approval. It will be important for transit supporters to continue to pay attention and encourage strong final recommendations.


Capital Costs and Timeline Reform 

California has notoriously high costs for rail transit capital projects – 2-3 times the global average cost per mile.

Nevertheless, as with transit coordination, the initial staff proposals to reform capital projects to achieve lower costs and faster delivery times had received agency pushback at the April Task Force meeting, in this case from BART and LA Metro. 

Since that meeting, staff consulted with operators and subject matter experts to further refine recommendations. Advocates also spoke up and mobilized to convey to TTTF how important capital cost and timeline reform is to California’s mobility future. 

Staff, through interviews with subject matter experts, identified key drivers of high transit costs in California, including over-scoping of infrastructure, excessively customized designs, extractive 3rd parties, lengthy permitting timelines, and a small contracting market for transit projects. 

Staff did not specifically identify funding program designs but Californians for Electric Rail’s white paper “Against Patchwork Funding” also identified California’s reliance on competitive, discretionary grant programs to partially fund capital projects as a key driver of cost escalation and delay. 

Slide from the February 2025 Meeting, the first time the Task Force discussed capital construction costs and timelines.

At the August TTTF hearing staff brought back refined strategies for capital cost reform: labeled as XX to grow public sector capacity; and labeled as YY to reduce timelines to deliver capital projects. 

Under the strategy of Grow Public Sector Capacity staff provided four recommendations: 

  • State support for operators to develop business cases for transit capital projects

  • Statewide procurement of project delivery software

  • Create a reference transit component price list and support direct material purchasing

  • Develop regional capacity and center of excellence for project delivery.

Under the strategy of Reduce Timelines to Deliver Capital Projects staff presented nine recommendations: 

Task Force members provided broad conceptual support for these strategies, and all of the recommendations concerning Growing State Capacity (XX) were approved. More serious concerns were raised to YY.4 - Service-Led Planning by MTC’s representative. Alix Bockelman of MTC asked whether service-led planning, which is a fundamental element of the state rail plan, which is not constrained to predictable funding sources, could work with a constrained funding plan such as the regional transportation plan. This concern sets up a false choice; even within fiscal constraints, capital and operating investments designed to achieve service goals will deliver better outcomes than a patchwork of investments driven by local goals with less consideration of rider benefits.

Also, California Transit Association’s Michael Pimental expressed concern about YY.5 - Re-Evaluation of Benefits and Costs Prior to Construction Funding Award. Specifically Pimental was concerned about how such a requirement could prejudice projects with sales-tax endorsed project lists. These recommendations were held back from approval pending further refinement.

Finally Public Advocates representative Laurel Padget-Seekins and Ian Griffiths asked staff to bring back an item regarding funding reform for capital projects. Both Task Force members requested staff bring back a recommendation for multi-year framework funding agreements to deliver better outcomes from capital funding relative to the grant funding status quo, along the lines of the Californians for Electric Rail recommendations. Staff attempted to re-direct Griffiths and Padget-Seekins to a forthcoming grant streamlining recommendation but streamlining grants will not solve the underlying problems caused by patchwork funding of minimally-designed projects. The Task Force members re-affirmed their interest in seeing recommendations for a framework funding proposal. 

Next Steps

The TTTF will convene for its final scheduled meeting on September 30, 2025 to vote on the final recommendations to be included in the SB 125 Final Report. 

The August 26 meeting made progress, but there are still question marks on whether the final SB 125 Final Report will include global best practice policies around transit coordination and capital project reform.   Transit riders and supporters will need to pay attention to the final recommendations to encourage adoption of strong policies for coordinated fares, schedules, planning, and capital projects.

Between now and the final task force meeting, the legislature will make critical decisions on whether the state’s Cap and Invest program will continue to provide critical state operating and capital funding, and on the opportunity for a ballot measure to support Bay Area’s regional transit. 

To urge the legislative leadership and governor to support and not undermine the state’s rail and transit system, click here to send a message.

Adina Levin