The Bay Area “transit industrial complex” is once again demanding more money from hard pressed consumers.
Read more Inman Down Under: All roads (laneways) lead to 49ers, Faithful swarming Melbourne
In November, voters in four counties will be asked to approve a 0.5% sales tax hike, lifting the total tax take to as high as 11.25% on purchases of clothes, prepared food, gas, school supplies and other essentials. In San Francisco, the sales tax hike would be 1.0%.
RELATED: Schaaf: Vote ‘yes’ on Regional Transit Measure. We can’t afford to let Bay Area transit collapse.
The tax — dubbed the Regional Transit Measure or Measure RTM — comes on top of already-existing transit sales taxes. And it falls most heavily on those least able to afford it: seniors and working families trying to make ends meet in America’s most expensive region.
Proponents allege that, without the tax hike, transit service would collapse. But that is, by no means, a foregone conclusion.
The state Legislature, which passed the enabling legislation to put the transit tax on the ballot, would have other options. The simplest fix would be to temporarily divert money now earmarked for California’s woebegone high-speed rail project to Bay Area transit operations. The $1 billion of “cap and invest” money the state spends annually on the bullet train exceeds the $980 million expected from the first year of the transit tax.
It is worth noting that if the tax passes revenues will be spent on many things other than keeping buses and trains running. According to a Metropolitan Transit Commission fact sheet, only 63%, or about $620 million, of the total revenues raised will go to “preserving transit service,” with other portions allocated to such categories as administering the tax, providing free and discounted transfers, paving roads that have bus service, and building “transit infrastructure.”
This last category should raise eyebrows in Santa Clara County, whose residents will see little benefit from bailing out BART, Muni or AC Transit. The lion’s share of their tax money will go to VTA, which does not face large, near-term operating deficits.
Instead of keeping buses and light rail running, VTA can use the funds for capital projects, like its BART to Silicon Valley extension. VTA’s May 2026 progress report shows a $564 million funding gap.
The 6.1-mile, four-station extension is projected to cost $12.7 billion — more than $2 billion per mile. Even MTC’s own benefit-cost analysis assigns it a ratio below 0.5 under the scenario most closely resembling post-pandemic conditions: less than 50 cents of estimated benefits for every dollar spent. A recent civil grand jury report also identified serious financial, management and oversight problems.
Read more Bay Area prep football 2026: Where to find our complete Week 2 coverage
But even if VTA plugs its local funding gap, federal matching funds are far from guaranteed. Since President Trump returned to office, the Federal Transit Administration has not signed a single new Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement through its Capital Investment Grants program. Utah may get one soon, but Congressional Democrats believe the Trump Administration may be singling out blue state capital projects for funding delays. Under the circumstances, an FFGA for the BART extension before 2029 is unlikely.
Rather than wait out the federal government, VTA should cancel or truncate this project.
Other excessively costly transit construction projects around the Bay Area should be paused, truncated or cancelled. Top among these is the $8.25 billion, 1.3-mile Caltrain extension to Salesforce Transit Center. This project makes even less sense now that there is no prospect for high-speed rail service running up Caltrain tracks. Another costly, unnecessary project is the $2.05 billion Valley Link, a rail connection between Mountain House, Livermore and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Express buses could easily serve this route more cost-effectively.
The state Legislature working with MTC could redirect state grant funds and toll revenues from these projects to fill transit budget gaps.
The agencies themselves should reduce excessive non-operational costs such as high executive compensation and retiree health care. Longer term, they should be planning to introduce autonomous vehicles to increase service frequency while reducing labor costs.
After using transfers from capital projects to fill operational deficits, the transit community can then come back to the ballot in 2028 with a more streamlined plan, and, ideally, one that does not excessively burden low and moderate income Bay Area residents.
Instead, the business interests pushing the Regional Transit Measure should take more responsibility for funding a safe, reliable Bay Area transit system.
Marc Joffe is president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and treasurer of the Committee for Affordable Transit, No on Measure RTM.
Read more Australia’s pipeline to the NFL includes talent, not just eyeballs
About the Author
