Despite some transit leaders’ hesitation, new polling data shows that a Bay Area sales tax is the most likely path to close Caltrain and BART’s ballooning deficits — more so than relying on a county-specific ballot measure.
The county’s transit leaders have been debating whether to join a regional sales tax measure in 2026 — which would currently include San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties — or rely on the renewal or expansion of Measure A, a San Mateo County half-cent sales tax that expires in 2033.
The county has an obligation to fund Caltrain — which faces an average annual operating deficit of $75 million starting in a couple years — however, many electeds have been wary of joining a regionwide measure, in part due to lack of confidence in other operators, such as BART, over which the county has little operational control.
“If we cross this Rubicon, then we’re going to have BART coming back to us and wanting more money or a percentage every single year — whether they are complying with the requests we’re making — because there is really no accountability because there is no board membership,” Jackie Speier, SamTrans board member and San Mateo County supervisor, said during a board meeting July 2.
While the county houses six BART stations, it is technically not part of the BART Board of Directors, though it contributes some Measure A and Proposition 42 funds to the agency each year albeit at a much lower level than member counties San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa. San Mateo County contributed about $3 million to BART in fiscal year 2023 for operational expenses, whereas the other three counties contributed about $390 million total for operational expenses within that same time period.
According to ridership data from May, BART stations in San Mateo County comprised less than 1% of total monthly ridership.
But recent polling indicated that the multicounty measure would still fare better than asking voters to increase Measure A, especially since the former will likely need just a simple majority to pass rather than the two-thirds threshold for the latter.
Relying on Measure A to close Caltrain’s deficit could also mean steep funding cuts for infrastructure projects, from road repairs to long-awaited grade separations at railway crossings.
While about 72% of respondents said they were supportive of renewing Measure A at the current rate — above the necessary two-thirds threshold — Jessica Epstein, director of Government and Community Affairs, said the polling did not lay out the infrastructure tradeoffs that would accompany the renewal. Of respondents, 59% were in favor of increasing Measure A, an option that would retain more infrastructure funding but doesn’t meet the minimum level of support for passage based on the data.
David Canepa, SamTrans board member and president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, said he was pleasantly surprised at the favorable poll results for a multicounty measure.
“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.”
Other board members, including Josh Powell, said they also felt like this was the best option, provided sufficient accountability measures for major operators are implemented.
Speier has been critical of the regional measure, however, she has said she would be more open to a measure that was based on a gross receipts tax on large businesses, rather than the proposed sales tax.
“Frankly, we are putting this on the backs of poor people, whereas the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the companies because these employees ride Caltrain and ride BART,” she said.
SamTrans will vote on whether to join the regional measure Aug. 6.
(2) comments
There is no "Fiscal Cliff". That is a made-up crisis. These politicians are creating the very environment that keeps increasing prices in the Bay Area so they can promise to fix increased prices. Instead they are creating the same debt spiral as Washington DC.
A few things to consider here:
- MTC - with board member David Canepa - might be audited for creating a slush fund to reroute bridge tool transit funding to car and real estate projects (source: BANG)
- SamTrans' revenue is 95% covered by local sales taxes - meaning they could reduce cost by 5% and provide free service all over the county.
- Instead SamTrans bought a second HQ, is handling several real estate projects (incl. unnecessary Sea Level Rise projects) and has therefore increased labor cost while reducing bus service.
- SM Transit Authority is constantly taking public transit money and rerouting it into car projects ("grade separation").
- BART is known for their mismanagement by staff and the board - different board members admitted as much. Why throw more money at bad leadership?
- BART even fought an inspector general put in place to provide oversight. Which legit public agency has so much to hide - and yet neither Sacramento nor MTC are not forcing them to change? That means the corruption is benefitting MTC and Sacramento politicians as well.
- What have BART, BART Police, SamTrans, Caltrain, VTA all in common? They all bought new headquarters within the last few years and with reduced ridership because they want to grow the administration side. These agencies are rich, they want the public to pay for all their real estate projects and the management of those projects.
- VTA and BART have chosen the most expensive version of a tunnel project instead of the most prudent.
None of these facts add up to the story that BART, Caltrain, VTA need more money. They all tell us that these YIMBY-endorsed politicians on these boards are working for or with real estate and infrastructure companies to misuse transportation funding for other purposes.
Folks, don’t fall for what are likely reported results from polling data which only has “loaded” questions. I’m betting that all questions were related to an increase in taxes and there was no option for “no taxes.” Remember, any money out of your pocket for transit will go towards paying ever-increasing pensions and benefits. Note again that there is never any reporting on fiscal management. These folks continue operating at 100% even though ridership is only 50%. Vote NO on any tax measures, not just for transit, but for all services. BTW, I’m betting SamTrans will join the regional measure. But still vote NO.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.