The regional measure, authorized by Senate Bill 63, will likely go before voters in 2026 within at least San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties 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. Caltrain, whose managing agency is SamTrans, 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.
San Mateo County, through its Transit District, called SamTrans, has until Aug. 11 to decide whether it will opt in to the measure.
According to a letter from state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the current proposal would allocate 7% to Caltrain, with 31%, or $330 million, to BART. About 16%, or $170 million, would go toward the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency.
Because San Mateo County does not have any representatives on the BART Board of Directors, some leaders were adamant about including explicit language and oversight to ensure the operator uses the potential funding wisely. While the county contributes significantly less in operating costs than the member districts — San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties — it also means it has less sway in operating decisions. The county’s transit leaders have historically expressed frustration over what they consider subpar safety measures and lack of coordination scheduling with Caltrain.
“Frankly, we’re being asked to have our taxpayers fund services run by agencies we don’t control with no real say in how those services are operated, and that’s not how regional collaboration is supposed to work, and it sets a risky precedent,” Julia Mates, TA board member and Belmont mayor, said.
In response, SB 63’s draft proposal suggested a regional measure accountability committee with two commissioners from each of the participating counties. If approved by the MTC, the operators who don’t fulfill the obligations could see up to 5% of their funding withheld.
Several leaders, during recent discussions at San Mateo County Transportation Authority and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, said the 5% maximum was too low.
“As it stands, I don’t think the remedies are strong enough. We are still hoping that other operators will do things in good faith,” Mates said. “That’s really risky.”
SamTrans Chief Communications Officer Emily Beach said during a TA meeting that staff said they’d also “like to see additional withholding funds.”
Several C/CAG members also voiced support for a more local regional measure oversight committee, consisting of five county-based members.
Both the TA and C/CAG recommended support for the measure, albeit with stronger accountability provisions. SamTrans will meet Aug. 6 and make the decision whether to opt in.
(7) comments
If SMC leaders are expecting BART to practice fiscal management, they may as well stop voting to support a regional sales tax measure and go it alone. BTW, shouldn’t SamTrans do what they’re demanding of others – providing explicit language and oversight to ensure SamTrans uses potential funding wisely? Regardless, vote NO on any transportation tax measure. No transportation agency uses funding wisely as most goes towards ever increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits. Nobody will answer why transportation agencies continually operate at 100% capacity when there’s only 50% demand or less. If there’s more demand, increase the capacity as needed. Easy-peasy. My prediction, SamTrans will decide to opt in and they’ll settle on what Senate Bill 63 gives them – no concessions to SamTrans. And perhaps because SMC has low confidence their measure would pass?
Samtrans is almost 100% funded through Measure A/W. So why is riding the bus NOT free in the county?
Why is Rico E. Medina, Jeff Gee and 'equity warrior' David Canepa fleecing poor people twice while the rich get free highway expansions?
And why did Rico E Medina and SSF's Nagalles try to get a Public Transit resident off the SMC TA commitee for being pro-Transit.
Samtrans' leadership is just as embarrassing as BART's.
These people aren't helping Public Transit, they are harming ... on purpose.
eGerd – TBot here. Or… perhaps these folks are taking into the consideration the vast multitudes of people who need to get around in vehicles and they’re willing to take a stand against the small (maybe minuscule) number of folks who would rather inconvenience everyone to the detriment of the environment they’re allegedly trying to save.
That would make them climate change deniers ... right in the middle of 'green' and blue San Mateo, wouldn't it.
Back when America was still great, they didn't fight Smoking and lung cancer by handing out free cigarettes, did they.
eGerd – TBot here. If that’s your rationale then that would make climate change deniers of all the folks who only talk the talk about saving the world but not doing anything to walk the walk. Especially those folks who take 400+ private planes to attend, of all things, a climate change conference to lecture everyone else on the ills of carbon. BTW, in the past, America did hand out free cigarettes. So again, perhaps the folks you’re trying to demonize care more about the vast multitude of their constituents than the few attempting to yell the loudest.
America didn't fight Smoking and lung cancer by handing out free cigarettes and leaning into the addiction. But 'Doing the right thing' still requires 'doing the right'.
The problem of your 400+ pretenders or our San Mateo Democrats is that they are some of the worst addicts out there.
eGerd – TBot here. The number of pretenders is much more than the 400+ and San Mateo Democrats you highlight. They include everyone who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Speaking of walking the walk, what are you doing to save the world? Are you using electricity where at least half, on average, is generated from fossil fuels? Are you using running water which is filtered and pumped using fossil fuels? Are you living in a residence where just about everything (maybe everything) was manufactured using fossil fuels? If so, wouldn’t that make you a pretender? To borrow from FFGig (who we haven’t heard from a while – I hope he’s okay), “End of discussion. Next.”
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.