I believe the GGBridge District (GGT's parent) does not currently have representatives from Mendo and Humboldt. Dont' know enough of the detailed history to understand why. SF largely controls the board, unless things have changed since I lived there some years ago.

GGT started when Greyhound decided to get out of the commute business (which they of course had taken over from NWP when the electrics shut down - SP at one time owned a piece of Greyhound) because they could no longer make money on it. Fear was that without the commute buses the bridge and most of 101 would go to gridlock. At the time, that was not a baseless fear. So GGT was created, absorbing the Greyhound commute system and locals as far north as Santa Rosa. The commute expresses are the remnants of that service, and unless things have changed drastically since I used them in the 1980s they are funded entirely from bridge tolls and fares. So decent financial discipline is necessary to keep things going - meaning schedules and even routes are adjusted frequently to adapt to changing ridership.

Most of the all-day local runs by now get standard transit subsidies - which require 20% or more from the farebox (operating expenses only, not capital) but also make it possible (usually) to avoid huge hits from the "social service" on the GGB budget. State and Federal capital funds are used for most bus and ferry improvements and vehicles. Practically all transit systems work like that: capital comes out of a different pot of taxes than operating funds, so it's very possible to build or buy something you can't afford to run. GGT has been pretty "smart" about that little trap overall, though there have been times that the ferries seemed like big holes in the water for pouring money into.

Don't forget that GGT isn't the only thing the Bridge District does. Mostly, they're responsible for maintaining the Bridge - not an inconsiderable job. Transit including ferries is a big chunk of the budget, but hardly all of it or even most of it. Your bridge tolls at work etc. I can easily understand why the Bridge District wouldn't want to get heavily involved with a N.Bay rail system unless they had a way other than bridge tolls to cover the local part of the cost. GGB is the only one of the big bridges around the Bay that is not state-owned.

What does this have to do with SMART? Little, except to the extent that an operating SMART might require reconfiguration of the transit service GGT provides (likely, but not to eliminate it!). Have any of the SMART materials discussed intelligently the likely effects on GGT routes and service, and cost? And it's a little historical and fiefdom information that might help understand why some things are hard to do (trains on the bridge, for instance, ignoring the engineering issues).

Interesting point we ran into where I live now. Had commute buses that were covered by normal transit funding. Light rail opened. Commute buses shut down - excuse was that you can't use Federal transit operating funds for "competing" services. So the commute jumped from 30-40 minutes with no stops to 50 minutes with 20+ stops. This is an improvement? Of course, the rail is cheaper (lower fare) and runs all day instead of just at commute periods, but the convenience, comfort, and speed of the buses were probably worth something extra. Think about it - though in the N.Bay if GGT still doesn't use Fed operating funds for the commuters this issue may not apply. Could affect some of the local services, though, if SMART happens.

Cheers again!