A bill authorizing a sales tax ballot measure has passed the California Legislature, getting one step closer to going before voters in the 2026 election and digging transit agencies out of their deficits.
Senate Bill 63 is meant to narrow Bay Area transit agencies’ gaping deficits — such as Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit — via a half-cent sales tax in several Bay Area counties, including San Mateo, for 14 years.
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.
SamTrans voted to opt the county into measure in August, though several San Mateo County leaders, including Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, and Supervisor Jackie Speier, have been critical of the accountability provisions in the bill, mostly related to BART. The bill currently authorizes a committee to adjudicate claims over a transit operator’s lack of adherence to its required financial review and analysis, potentially withholding funding. Papan and others wanted stronger accountability provisions that would allow each county to withhold their funding allocation if certain financial standards were not met. During the Assembly hearing last week, she urged other lawmakers to vote against the bill, saying that funding shouldn’t come at the expense of accountability.
However, David Canepa, president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, said the vote was “significant on many levels” and he is confident voters would support the measure, regardless of whether leaders like Speier, Papan and Supervisor Ray Mueller oppose it.
“There aren’t one or two elected officials that can sway an election,” he said. “The people who drive the message are the voters themselves.”
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. Caltrain has said the need is “existential,” with the possibility of service cuts in the future if significant funding is not restored.
“Without SB 63, we risk having to make service cuts that would put those gains at risk and push more cars back onto already congested roads. SB 63 offers a light at the end of the tunnel to keep riders moving, reduce traffic and build the sustainable transit system our region needs,” Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard said in a statement.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Oct. 12 to sign the bill into law.
(5) comments
Folks, don’t fall for the sob stories. We all know transit will not cease to exist if this bill doesn’t pass. The bottom line is that this bill will take more (if not all) proceeds of your money and transfer it to union transportation workers. Remember, these are the transit unions that operated at 100% capacity with 50% or less ridership during the years of COVID, and even to now. Vote NO. If you change your mind, don’t worry, we know more measures to take more of your money to transfer to union workers will show up again. Over and over again. Because ever-increasing union transportation worker salaries, pensions, and benefits must be paid for.
Please don't let your hatred of unions get in the way of the facts.
During the pandemic, Caltrain, BART, and Samtrans all reduce service as demand fell.
Thanks for your response, joebob91, but I don’t recall any union transit workers furloughed or laid off. And if not, why not? If transit agencies reduced service then where did all of the workers not needed for providing service do? I believe I read an article highlighting that the number of transit workers increased during the COVID years. Why would they need to if they were reducing service?
The bottom line and the facts are that these transit agencies are operating at 100% capacity (or staffing if that makes you happy) with only 50% demand. Don’t fall for the sob stories. Unless you’re okay with your money being transferred to union transportation workers, vote NO and force these agencies to practice fiscal management. Don’t worry, whether this passes or not, transit and politicians will hit you up for more of your money. The salary, pension, and benefit monster must be fed. While you go on a fiscal diet.
Thanks to Supervisor Canepa and the other electeds who passed this import measure, saving transit on the Peninsula. While the measure isn't perfect, it is the best (and only?) option put forward to address the looming fiscal cliffs faced by our transit agencies.
joebob91, David Canepa is on the Board of MTC. This board is accused by the Mercury News to have created a slushfund with bridge toll money that should have gone to public transit.
That doesn't make him the good guy, that makes him the villain in this story.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2024/12/06/borenstein-73-million-bay-area-toll-money-for-transit-diverted-to-bridges/
And again, SamTrans has promised $50M in spending on upgrades for their riders. That money went into another HQ, new offices, office upgrades, new hydrogen buses, new battery buses, bonus and salary increases, etc.
That is a lot of self-pleasuring by SamTrans, but not one of these expenses improves the ridership experience or ridership. Bus shelters on the other hand would increase service, convenience, and ridership.
Again, that doesn't make him the good guy. That tells us even im SamTrans and Caltrain get that money, Canepa will find a way to re-route it into car-centric projects. Think more highways.
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.