County leaders’ discussions over a potential regional sales tax measure highlight ongoing tension toward BART, as supervisors spar over whether the ballot measure would help or hurt taxpayers in the long run.
The ballot measure would impose a half-cent to one-cent sales tax in several Bay Area counties — including Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa — to shore up major transit operators’ steep fiscal shortfalls, including Caltrain and BART. Caltrain is facing a $75 million average annual deficit starting next July. That represents almost 30% of its operating budget this fiscal year. According to a June press release, the agency could face “service reductions, including station closures” without additional funding.
With an operating budget of $1.2 billion this fiscal year, BART is averaging an ongoing structural deficit ranging from $350 million to $400 million starting in about a year.
The fiscal cliff represents an issue transit operators are facing not just in the Bay Area but nationwide, especially since the pandemic. Sebastian Petty, senior transportation advisor at SPUR, noted that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia recently went off the fiscal cliff and just implemented its first round of cuts, which is about 20% of service.
“They’re looking to cut up to 50% of the service by the end of the year, so, absent some serious changes, it is headed down the drain,” Petty said. “Chicago is not far behind … Dallas, Portland and Washington are all in the same boat in the next few months without some kind of intervention.”
State Sen. Scott Wiener, who is co-author on Senate Bill 63 — which authorizes the measure to go before voters — said there have been challenges even before the pandemic.
“It’s been almost 20 years since I’ve been either involved or paying close attention to transit funding or policy in the Bay Area and the fiscal cliff and the potential of a death spiral is something we’ve been talking about in the Bay Area for decades,” Wiener said during the supervisors meeting. “The pandemic accelerated it, but this structural gap has been a problem for many years.”
SamTrans, the county’s transit district, voted earlier this month to opt in to the measure, with the only opposition from Jackie Speier, SamTrans board member and San Mateo County supervisor. While the Board of Supervisors doesn’t have the authority to opt in or out, they still decided to discuss the issue at a meeting Aug. 26.
Supervisor Ray Mueller said the measure is a bad deal for the county, largely because the proposed contribution to BART is too high — 11% of the transit measure’s sales tax revenue from the county would go to BART, when county-originated BART trips, excluding the airport, comprise only 6% of rides, according to 2024 BART data. Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, as well as Speier, said they also want the county to have the ability to withhold their portion of funding to BART if they feel like the agency is not providing adequate service or maintenance. Currently, Wiener’s version proposes a Metropolitan Transportation Commission committee comprising all involved counties, not just San Mateo County.
Wiener said even with the county-specific surcharge, there is the belief outside the county that it actually underpays its contribution to BART and added that no other county gets the ability to decide whether to withhold their funding to BART. That makes the ask from Papan an unfair provision, he added. And despite claims that San Mateo County stations are neglected, there is more frequent train service in the county than in Contra Costa County, he said.
Out of all the four BART counties’ contributions to operating costs, San Mateo County pays about 1%, or about $4 million last fiscal year, despite the 6% ridership. San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties contributed $103 million, $180 million and $109 million, respectively, in sales and property taxes over the same time period.
Mueller said it isn’t fair to try to make up for what BART or others might consider a bad deal in the past.
“They shouldn’t be supersizing our contribution to BART,” Mueller said. “You can’t say to someone, ‘based on the past, we’re going to stick it to you this time,’ because that was the contract you entered into.”
If the legislation goes forward as currently proposed by Wiener, Mueller said he wouldn’t support the measure.
The supervisors’ discussion comes after SamTrans already made the decision to opt into the measure. While Papan could vote against the bill in the Legislature if she doesn’t like the final language, there is a good chance the measure could still pass — but without the support of other major San Mateo County leaders, like Speier and Papan, the chances of the measure’s success may diminish.
The Legislature has until Sept. 12 to pass the bill, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Oct. 12 to sign it.
(2) comments
Voters should say NO unless all these 28 transportation agencies start merging.
- Caltrain and BART aren't getting along
- BART and VTA aren't getting along
- MTC (David Canepa) moved money away from transit agencies and they didn't even realize it
- SamTrans (David Canepa) is already almost 100% funded through Measure A/W - the next things was Jeff Gee, Rico E. Medina, David Canepa reduced service.
All transit agencies are sabotaged by Caltrans which put all its money into highway widenings to keep ridership down on BART, VTA, Caltrain and SamTrans.
Make them merge, this way they have more political power, but also get more professional leadership and move out these "saboteurs" from these boards.
My predictions: the Legislature will pass the bill, Newsom will sign it, San Mateo county leaders, after all of this hemming and hawing, will ultimately urge voters to support the bill. It’s all about ensuring transit union salaries, pensions, and benefits continue to be paid to operate at 100% capacity with 50% or less ridership. Notice Pennsylvania is doing something, by cutting 20% of service, but here in the Bay Area, nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They’re hoping taxpayers will continue paying for service many don’t use. But again, it’s never about the service, it’s about union workers. 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.