After months of back-and-forth deliberation, San Mateo County Transit District voted to opt in to a regional sales tax measure to help transit operators, including Caltrain and BART, narrow their gaping fiscal deficits over the next decade.
The regional measure, authorized by Senate Bill 63, will likely go before voters in 2026 within several Bay Area counties — including San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa — and is mostly intended to narrow major transit operators’ growing deficits. It would impose a half-cent sales tax in the area for 14 years, according to the current version of the bill, and raise $135 million annually by fiscal year 2031. Caltrain projects an average annual deficit of $75 million starting in fiscal year 2027, and BART is averaging an ongoing structural deficit ranging from $350 million to $400 million starting in about a year.
In the most recent proposals, the major operators must create a detailed financial plan and will be independently audited, however, the language is not officially part of the bill.
“They must make a plan to improve their bottom line, and they will be audited … funding is conditional on this plan,” Jessica Epstein, director of Government and Community Affairs at SamTrans, said. “This is supposed to be a lifeline, not permanent, so they need to do the hard work of getting to a balanced budget.”
A proposed separate committee from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission — comprised of the member counties — would also be created and would adjudicate complaints from the member counties over a transit agency’s violations, including disproportionate service cuts or fare surcharges. A maximum of 5% of total funding could be withheld if there are found to be violations, which would be about $17 million annually for BART.
Transit leaders have also been concerned that, under the current proposal, even if San Mateo County voters don’t approve the measure but the majority of voters across all member counties approve it, the county would still have to be included in the sales tax measures.
“If voters of San Mateo County, in the end, vote no on this half-cent sales tax, it’s tough luck,” said SamTrans Board Member Jackie Speier, also a member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
Even though the county has six BART stations, it is not part of the BART board of directors, however, it does contribute to its operating costs.
But without opting in, the county would have to rely on the county-specific Measure A funding, which could result in less funding for capital improvement projects, like grade separations or highway repairs if voters didn’t approve an increase.
“Accountability and local control are nonnegotiable, and SB 63 delivers both for San Mateo County. This measure ensures we have a real voice in how our sales tax dollars are spent, while protecting critical funding for SamTrans and Caltrain,” SamTrans Board Member David Canepa, also the president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement. “When transit agencies are facing deficits and riders are relying on us more than ever, we must choose progress over paralysis. This is a critical moment for San Mateo County to show its leadership in resolving a very real public transportation crisis in the Bay Area.”
“Our residents would pay hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifespan of this measure,” she said. “Over $600 million would flow just to BART and Muni alone, systems operated entirely outside of our control.”
The board voted to opt in, with only Speier opposing.
Correction: Caltrain projects a $75 million annual deficit starting in fiscal year 2027, not SamTrans.
(5) comments
The lack of stringent accountability was not the major flaw in our transit leaders' caving into SB63, though props to Diane Papan for trying. The major problem is that 5 years after it became apparent that trends to work and shop from home had become permanent, and Traditional Transit had become grossly inefficient, two things did NOT happen:
1. The encrusted transit bureaucracies did not develop plans to reduce expenses to curtail their losses, and,
2. The encrusted transit bureaucracies did not develop plans to evaluate more modern, agile, affordable and potentially autonomous alternatives.
It is not surprising that entrenched transit authorities would not act in the public interest with fiduciary responsibility and study better alternatives. What is surprising is that our elected officials - those who sit on transit boards while representing voters, residents and taxpayers - ALSO have not mandated studies of cost-efficient alternatives after 5 years.
Note that SB63 was and is changing up to the last minute, but less than 50% of the funds will go to SMC transit. The rest will go to BART, SF Muni, the MTC bureaucracy, etc. Had SMC decided to do its own tax, and kept the money, they would have had over twice as much as now in the bill.
Traditional transit costs over 7 TIMES as much as a cheap EV, and ties up 16 TIMES as much money for capital assets, unfunded pension liabilities and long term debt. There are both better approaches to transportation and better ways to design an urban region than paying to funnel lots of people into the same location at the same time.
This bill mus be stopped by the voters, and an overdue effort at serious, responsible re-imagining of Bay Area transit begun.
Robots are not an answer. They are sexy, but expensive and foolish. Most are back to commuting, but they are not going to SF, which is what the model is based on. The tax suckers will do just that, if the taxpayers allow it - which I am convinced they will. Just wait for the campaigns to start which say "vote for this, or all transit shuts down". That's fine - let it. The unions will want to keep this going, so they will find another way. A regressive sales tax is the worst possible vehicle for financing a bloated combination of systems. Cut costs, get concessions from unions, or shut down. Let them walk (or eat cake - as the case may be).
What a surprise! NOT! In the Bay Area with Democrats, it always comes down to the money, especially for union labor. These so-called transit leaders have figured out what many of us already knew...there’s a better chance of getting something, even without achieving any concessions. no matter how small than getting nothing at all since there wasn’t really a Plan B in place. Regardless, I’d recommend everyone vote NO on any measure that will prop up the free-spending ways of Bay Area transit agencies. Remember, most of (if not all) your money will go towards paying ever-increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits.
Hi, Terence
I'm sure you're aware of the old saw about too many people riding in the wagon and not enough left to pull the wagon. It seems to fit the current conversation re: our transit woes. Make no mistake... public transportation in the bay Area is structured such that it is an entitlement program. It's that simple. Should we help those who might need to rely on a bus or train ride to get to work, go shopping or otherwise get around town? Yes. However, the byzantine and convoluted system of transportation services is not working. So, what's the answer? Another tax, of course! Back to the wagon... who is riding? There is a small number of subsidized folks with legitimate transportation needs in the wagon. They are wedged in between local pols and the unions. Who is pulling the wagon? Taxpayers. The weight of the riders is too much for the pullers.
Kudos to Jackie for voting no on this proposal, but one has to wonder if the now over 10% sales tax (if this passes) was chief among the reasons, or if it was only the control issue which caused this vote. Hope it was both. The same people who cheer when the agency employees get outsized raises, never giving one thought to the fact that they get to pay those increases, will vote for this mess Add to that, Scott Weiner is behind this farce and you have the only reasons you need to kill this idea before it is born. Just watch - it will pass with flying colors. Then those folks will cry foul when that see what the sales tax payment means to them. Too bad - smarten up and vote no. They will find a way to survive.
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.