The county’s primary transit agencies, SamTrans and Caltrain, are apprehensive over proposed transit ballot measures aimed at narrowing the fiscal cliffs of the region’s largest operators.
An initiative to put a Bay Area transit funding measure on the 2026 ballot, led by state senators Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, were scrapped several months ago after failing to garner enough support. But a renewed effort is underway, largely to address the massive projected deficits held by the region’s largest transit agencies like Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit.
But leaders of San Mateo County’s transit agencies are still hesitant over the recently proposed 2026 ballot measure options, which were first discussed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the region’s financing agency, earlier this summer.
The first option would raise $540 million over 30 years via a half-cent sales tax and involve San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties — though other counties could opt in if they choose. About 90% of the funds would go to some of the largest operators like BART and Caltrain for the first eight years. Jessica Epstein, director of Government and Community Affairs at SamTrans, said the measure is heavily focused on supplementing BART. While BART operates down to the mid-Peninsula, San Mateo County is not part of its management district, which comprises officials from San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
“For San Mateo County, we would be a donor county, not a recipient,” Epstein said. “We have no idea how it would poll, but we do know that 60% of the San Mateo County voters don’t live anywhere near BART, so the likelihood, based on experience, of this measure, which is so clearly there to fund BART, passing in this county by two-thirds is really low.”
The second choice would be a nine-county regional measure, generating $1.5 billion through a parcel or payroll tax, with more funding going immediately to each county to use as they see fit. A final option would be for counties to bring forth separate measures to their own voters.
Caltrain stands to gain the most from the first measure, as it would eliminate 90% of its deficit, projected at $77 million annually starting in a few years. But during a recent meeting, the agency’s leaders were not so enthusiastic on either option, with some skeptical of any regional effort spearheaded by MTC, while others were hesitant over Santa Clara County’s proposed exclusion from the smaller-scale option.
BART bailout?
SamTrans leaders expressed the most concern, calling both proposals — particularly the $540 million, four-county plan — a BART bailout with little accountability for the agency that is staring down a $300 million fiscal cliff. SamTrans would receive little funding until about nine years after funds are generated.
“This is really a BART bill,” said David Canepa, SamTrans board member and San Mateo County supervisor. He added that he’d rather support much-needed Caltrain funding by allocating a portion of the county’s Measure A funds — which need to be reauthorized after 2033 — to the agency.
“I’m just beginning to question if MTC is the right platform for this,” he added.
Simmering tensions
Recommended for you
The pandemic-induced nosedive in BART and Caltrain ridership has exacerbated an already tense relationship between San Mateo County transit agencies and MTC, as funding to stay afloat becomes more dire. Earlier this year, county leaders expressed frustration with MTC over what some leaders considered an effort to consolidate Caltrain and BART.
The situation has only festered since, with Caltrain leaders remaining wary of any legislation that would put Peninsula taxpayers on the hook for BART’s shortfall.
“There is no accountability in a regional measure. One of the things about separate measures is that the public can look at the agency say, ‘Yes I think that agency is performing, and I appreciate how it’s doing, so I’m going to vote to give it money,’” said Ray Mueller, SamTrans and Caltrain board member and San Mateo County supervisor. “Candidly, if BART is not delivering, they should not get the benefit of all these other agencies being brought to the table to support it.”
Caltrain’s problems
But Caltrain is facing a revenue and ridership crisis of its own. Fare revenue more than halved between 2019 and 2023, and its post-pandemic recovery levels are even lower than BART’s, according to recent estimates. Caltrain’s ridership is about 35% of its 2019 level, compared with about 44% for BART.
San Mateo County resident Adina Levin, executive director of Seamless Bay Area, said Caltrain’s deficit is proportionally higher than BART’s when you factor in their different ridership levels, and the implication that county residents aren’t invested in helping BART is untrue.
“BART accounts for two-thirds of rail trips starting in San Mateo County, so the perception that nobody in San Mateo County uses or cares about BART, when you look at what the transit ridership actually is, does not match up,” she said. “The performance and shortfall of Caltrain and BART are very similar to each other, with Caltrain actually lagging BART.”
While the recent ballot measure proposals still need fine-tuning, she said the historical tension that has existed between the agencies for decades would be better channeled into making the entire system better for riders.
“There is definitely a legacy of a contentious relationship,” Levin said. “But I am hoping over the next few months, there can be a lot more perspective about how the county is served by both Caltrain and BART.”
MTC will discuss the issue again in September and October. A finalized measure will need to be completed by the end of the year, as it must be introduced to the state Legislature in early 2025 to be included in the 2026 ballot.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
(1) comment
Regardless of what shakes out, make sure you vote NO on any measures to fund transit. This would be a bailout for transit companies and you’d contribute to paying union salaries and ever increasing pensions and benefits. Note that BART and Caltrain have done nothing to be fiscally responsible, continuing to operate at full, or close to full schedules while ridership is at 44% and 35%, respectively. Imagine the money saved if both transit companies slimmed down to a 50% schedule but that wouldn’t reward union workers, would it? If these transit companies haven’t done anything to be fiscally responsible during the downturn, they’ll be even less fiscally responsible after they’ve fooled you into handing them more of your hard earned money. It is likely a plea for more of your money will show up - it doesn’t cost them anything to put it on the ballot but it does cost more of your taxpayer money. 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.