Just how did San Mateo County's bad blood with BART begin?

“I asked a simple question: Are there any surprises?” Scanlon said. “And my counterpart assured me there were none.”

The county’s public transit agency had been working with BART for years on the extension, agreeing to pay net operating costs and a portion of construction. Based on BART’s ridership and cost estimates, it seemed like the county could eventually see a surplus from the new line. 

But just a few weeks later, Scanlon found out the latest projections were wildly out of sync with what he had heard during the previous discussions. 

“They released new numbers that showed the costs just exploded,” he said. “The numbers were so much outside anybody’s expectations. I was very upset.” 

Because of their agreement, that meant SamTrans, the San Mateo County Transit District, would be on the hook for operating shortfalls. The new figures represented a near-existential threat to the agency, he said. 

For the next few years, the agency was hit with cumulative operating losses close to $50 million, an especially high amount at the time. 

While it may not have been the first time the county clashed with BART, it kicked off a decadeslong rift that many county officials continue to surface. 

“That started what I would call a period of real animosity and total mistrust between the two agencies. Feeling like we had been misled would be the most polite way I could put it,” Scanlon said. 

A few years later, in 2007, SamTrans and BART ironed out what many refer to as the “divorce agreement” — SamTrans would no longer be on the hook for the operating deficit, but in addition to a $32 million one-time payment, it would pay BART 2% of its revenue from the countywide sales tax, Measure A, each year, as well as roughly $800,000 annually from Proposition 42 funds. 

Since then, San Mateo County’s contributions to BART’s operations have stayed within a reasonable range in proportion to the county’s ridership.

In 2024, San Mateo County-originated BART trips — excluding the airport — comprised about 6% of total Bay Area trips, according to BART data. Last fiscal year, the county paid BART roughly $4 million in operating cost contributions, about 1% of the total contributions from all counties where the system operates. 

San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa, which are the only three counties that have representatives on the agency’s board of directors, contributed $103 million, $180 million and $109 million, respectively, in sales and property taxes over the same time period. Peninsula riders also pay a county-specific surcharge, though San Francisco and Alameda passengers overwhelmingly pay the majority of other surcharges, including capital and crossing the Bay. 

But nearly 20 years later, BART still seems to draw the ire of many San Mateo County officials on various transit boards, including Caltrain, SamTrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s transit financing agency. 

County leaders have frequently stated that, on top of its ongoing fiscal dilemmas, BART neglects San Mateo County stations, doesn’t address safety concerns and hasn’t done enough to coordinate its schedules with Caltrain at the Millbrae station, the only location where passengers can transfer from one rail operator to another. 

“Things have not been done for many, many years,” Gina Papan, a former Millbrae mayor who serves on the MTC board, said. “We feel San Mateo County has been short-changed on service.”

Papan has frequently chided BART for its lack of fiscal responsibility, opposing an emergency funding effort for the agency less than two years ago. 

“San Mateo County didn’t want BART. The reason we have BART is because San Francisco wanted it to get to the airport,” she said. 

A long history

While county leaders decided not to join the BART district in the 1960s, voters approved funding the extension in a 1987 ballot measure, which passed by 61%. 

When regional transit consolidation came up as part of a state Senate bill at the end of 2023 — aimed in part at improving major operators’ finances — SamTrans Board Member Marina Fraser said during a meeting that BART needed to “clean up their own house before they try to look at other people who are doing well” and that taxpayer funds shouldn’t be “drained into BART.”  

Jackie Speier, San Mateo County Transportation Authority board member and San Mateo County supervisor, has pointed to BART’s fiscal irresponsibility as one of several reasons she’s opposed to the measure. 

In an emailed statement, BART said that each of its stations are a “high priority due to the fact our riders come from all over the region,” and that it looks forward to “continuing to work with San Mateo County stakeholders to provide great transit options for everyone.”

But some county transit leaders are in a bind now that the county is contemplating whether to opt into a 2026 regional transit measure that would impose a sales tax on at least three Bay Area counties — San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa — with the revenue largely going to address some of the major operators’ deficits, especially Caltrain and BART. SamTrans has until Aug. 11 to make a decision. 

Caltrain, of which SamTrans is the managing agency with board members and funding from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, desperately needs the money. June figures show a 65% post-pandemic ridership recovery, perhaps the highest it’s been. But it’s still faced with a $75 million average annual deficit starting next July. That represents almost 30% of its operating budget this fiscal year. According to a June press release, the agency could face “service reductions, including station closures” without additional funding. 

But to support the measure would also mean supporting BART, a tough pill to swallow for some officials, who often see regional funding for the rail agency as a bailout. 

Papan said if the county opts into the regional measure, she’d like to see strong accountability measures placed on BART, including provisions that wouldn’t allow it to cut service in the county if funds are limited.  

With an operating budget of $1.2 billion this fiscal year, BART is averaging an ongoing structural deficit ranging from $350 million to $400 million starting in about a year — a similar deficit-to-budget ratio as Caltrain starting over the next several years. BART has also faced claims over substantial revenue loss from fare evasion, higher-than-average labor costs and its directly-elected board, which some claim incentivize political, rather than practical, decision making. 

Shuttered stations?

On the other side of the issue are people who say that without the measure, Bay Area public transit as we know it could collapse, painting images of shuttered stations morphing into abandoned buildings. During a rally at the Millbrae station earlier this month, transit advocates displayed BART cars in coffins as a warning for what could come if the county doesn’t support the regional measure. 

During a July board meeting, David Canepa, SamTrans board member and president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, said county leaders shouldn’t vote against a measure, even if imperfect, at the expense of Caltrain. 

“If you do not like BART, or if you don’t like Muni, it doesn’t mean you should vote no against the measure, because if you do, Caltrain will fail,” Canepa said. “We need to rally around Caltrain and make sure Caltrain continues to operate for everyone throughout the county.”

Recently, San Mateo County conducted its own polling to gauge voter sentiment and the probability of the voters supporting the regional transit measure. It showed that roughly 60% of voters would support a quarter- or half-cent regional sales tax measures. About 79% of respondents supported using tax dollars on BART service and 84% for Caltrain. 

County resident Adina Levin, a transit advocate who helps run Seamless Bay Area, said BART and Caltrain could be in serious jeopardy if the county does not opt in, adding that the average resident doesn’t hold the same resentment toward BART as county leaders who were around during the early-2000s debacle. 

“When BART did the expansion more deeply into San Mateo County, it was contentious with some leaders in San Mateo County, feeling it was an unwelcome intrusion and wishing it hadn’t happened,” Levin said. “There are some leaders who were in public service back then … and their feelings may date to that era … that feeling is extremely different from the popular sentiment today.”

According to recent SamTrans data, BART comprises more county trips annually than Caltrain. Levin said she wasn’t surprised by the ridership figures or the polling data. 

“But I think some leaders were not expecting that,” she said. 

Stakes are high

Despite favorable results, San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller said polling data is often unreliable, and the stakes are especially high, since the county could still be on the hook for the sales tax even if they vote against it. Under the current version, the measure requires passage from a majority of voters across the entire region, even if it fails in one county. 

“We shouldn’t be put in an awkward negotiation stance as to what the contribution should be simply to satisfy our Caltrain obligation,” Mueller said. “For those who say that a lot of people ride BART, well, that’s not how you negotiate a deal. You don’t put yourself in the worst possible position for your taxpayers.”

The bulk of the money going to BART as stipulated in the “divorce” agreement is set to end in just eight years, when Measure A expires. That leaves the county with a prime opportunity to figure out a better deal than what is currently proposed, Mueller said. 

Though frequently critical of BART’s operations in the county, Mueller agrees with some transit advocates and leaders that, despite some of the hurdles it would involve, pursuing a seat on BART’s board could be in the county’s best interest and doesn’t have to mean an exorbitant increase in contributions. Critics of joining the board have argued that it would require more taxpayer contributions for only one board seat — representation on paper but not in practice. 

“It’s still better than no representation,” Mueller said. 

Improved relations

SamTrans Chief Communications Officer Emily Beach said the agency’s relationship with BART has seen significant improvement, and the rail agency has been responsive to concerns at the stations. 

“History has proven that we really value the service that BART provides in San Mateo County,” Beach said. “We appreciate that BART has made a concerted effort in hearing feedback about making sure our stations in San Mateo County are well tended to, and they’re making a concerted effort to improve the cleanliness in the stations.”

Eighteen years after the settlement agreement, Scanlon is a frequent BART rider, and his personal experiences with both SamTrans and BART are generally positive. 

“We were both brought to the negotiating table kicking and screaming, but eventually you have to figure out a way to make it happen,” Scanlon said. “We’ve got to get over ourselves and hammer out a deal.”