Transportation Archives

MTC Tolling Study an Important Step Forward, But Equity Concerns Remain

December 4, 2024/in Blog, Climate Change, Transportation/by Abibat Rahman-Davies

The Bay Area has two problems with the same solution: highway congestion and the climate crisis. Both require us to drive less and use other transportation modes more. However, incentivizing people to choose other modes can be a challenge.

In 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) launched the Next Generation Bay Area Freeways Study with the goals of “analyzing the feasibility, costs, benefits, and public support for tolling certain Bay Area freeways as a strategy for delivering reliably high-speed travel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by passenger vehicles.” In September and October 2024, MTC briefed and solicited feedback from Transform staff on the options it’s studying.

What is tolling?

Toll roads are not a new concept. In other parts of the country, you can find many highways where drivers must pay a fee on entering or exiting. This may be a flat fee or based on the distance traveled.

Studies have found that introducing tolls can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Tolls on highway travel have the added benefit of reducing congestion, making travel faster for those who still need to drive. In fact, tolling is a better long-term solution for congestion than adding highway lanes. New lanes, even HOV or tolled lanes, lead to more driving, more greenhouse gases, and — within five to 10 years — more congestion.

Getting around in a private vehicle imposes an external cost on everyone, whether they drive or not, by creating pollution and contributing to a warming climate. Tolls place more of the true costs of driving back on the driver. Tolling is an excellent strategy for the Bay Area to explore. However, as the study notes, the MTC doesn’t currently have the authority to impose tolls; it would need state legislation to do that.

Two tolling options

The MTC study includes six pathways that they studied but really focuses on two main pathways. The first is all-lane highway tolling, which means all lanes of all major highways during weekday rush hours from 6-10 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. would be tolled. The second is a mileage-based user fee that would charge drivers on all roads in the Bay Area based on the number of miles they drive during all hours.

When it comes to affordability, reliability, equity, and safety, each option has its pros and cons, according to modeling MTC staff uses to estimate the costs and benefits. For example, all-lane tolling would potentially:

Decrease overall vehicle miles traveled by 4%
Decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 2%
Decrease highway peak travel times by 14%
Increase transit usage by 0.3%.

The tolling option would also be more affordable for families as tolls for households below 200% of the federal poverty level would be capped at a maximum of $70 annually.

A mileage-based user fee would:

Decrease overall vehicle miles traveled by 2%
Decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 2%
Decrease highway peak travel times by 2%
Increase transit usage by 0.7%.

A mileage-based user fee would be less affordable for families than all-lane tolling, as households below 200% of the federal poverty level would pay as much as $300 annually before they reached the cap.

The all-lane tolling option could increase local street usage by 11%, according to MTC’s modeling, bringing more smog and pollution to our local roads. It could also cause local roads to need more frequent repairs, which would upset local politicians. However, it is important to note that tolling freeways doesn’t just divert all the traffic to local roads. It’s also more likely to reduce overall demand for driving, so even though MTC’s modeling shows an increase in local road usage, we might not see this big of an increase on local roads when it’s applied in real-world conditions. This option would decrease vehicle miles traveled on highways by much more than a mileage-based user fee, but the user fee does not increase local street usage at all. In fact, it decreases street usage by 2%.

Increasing transit usage is an important cornerstone of Transform’s philosophy, and the mileage-based user fee would increase transit usage more than highway tolling because it would generate more revenues than highway tolling. Therefore, more transit investments could be made by reinvesting revenues from the mileage-based user fee for transit for the same amount of GHG reduction. The user fee has a lower initial financial cost to implement because it comes with zero capital costs and brings in an annual net revenue of $2 billion. All-lane tolling would require $2.3 billion in capital costs to implement and would bring in an annual net revenue of $550 million.

Equitable tolling

For Transform, equity is an essential component in all policy changes. Tolling and increasing transit ridership are imperative in reaching our state climate goals and decreasing climate change globally. If structured equitably, these measures can also redress past transportation harms and avoid burdening already struggling families.

One of the best ways to mitigate harm to lower-income drivers is by capping the amount of money low-income families will pay in new tolls. MTC has proposed monthly caps on toll expenditures where households earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — $62,400 for a family of four — only pay a maximum of $30 a month, while households at 200-300% of the federal poverty level would only pay a $60 maximum per month.

Additionally, highway tolls could result in a large increase in the use of local streets. While this model states that equity priority communities — Census tracts with a significant concentration of underserved populations, including people of color and households with low incomes — would not be disproportionately impacted, we remain cautious that the increase in vehicle miles traveled on local streets doesn’t disproportionately impact communities already burdened by pollution.

Equity includes ensuring that all regions of the Bay Area benefit from the money raised through tolling. Therefore, it is concerning that, in the highway tolling option being studied by MTC, the North Bay would only get 6% of the revenue from regional tolling for transit, local roads, and reparative infrastructure (investments in highway-adjacent low-income communities, such as urban greening and highway pedestrian crossings). We are all one region, so re-investment should not be exclusively tied to the percentage of county-generated revenue but allocated with the need and the importance of regional connectivity in mind.

All-lane tolling must also be equitable in how revenues are spent. MTC has proposed that 50% of the revenue from all-lane tolling will go to transit improvements, while 30% will go to roadway improvements and 15% to ‘reparative community investments.’ Since low-income and marginalized communities disproportionately use transit and have been harmed by past transportation decisions, the expenditures from all-lane tolling as proposed are progressive and would be an important step toward a more equitable transportation system.

Next steps for tolling

In a November 2024 policy advisory council meeting, MTC staff stated that while they are not saying one specific policy is better than another, they recommend that for Plan Bay 2050+, MTC should maintain the highway all-lane tolling option as a strategy in the plan and update it with the “latest strategy specifics to better balance tradeoffs between mobility, environmental, and equity outcomes.” In its upcoming implementation plan, MTC will identify actions to address some of the challenges mentioned in this blog.

While potential implementation of these tolling or user fee options would not start until 2035, MTC will be giving recommendations and an implementation roadmap during the fall and winter of 2024 and 2025, so this is a vital time for Transform to weigh in. We have been selected to be part of a diverse group of stakeholders participating in this process and have consistently reiterated the importance of equity in all tolling policy recommendations.

It’s critical to move forward on all-lane tolling, but Transform remains committed to ensuring an equitable solution moves forward.

Youth Task Force Members Speak About Safe Routes

October 30, 2024/in Blog, Safe Routes to Schools, Transportation/by Michele Walker

Header graphic by Alex from NEA Community Learning Center.

The Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Youth Task Force is made up of high school students who help coordinate SR2S events at their schools and take an active role in encouraging active and shared transportation among their peers. We recently asked them about why they joined the Youth Task Force and how their attitudes about active transportation have changed since they were in elementary school.

Students touched on themes of equity, access to public transit, independence, finding community, being of service, and fun. They shared their inspiration through artwork and text.

This is part one of a two-part series spotlighting Youth Task Force voices.

Building community

The glue that holds active transportation groups together is the strong bonds of community formed when people walk or bike together. Working to bring the joy of walking and rolling to their fellow students is also a bonding experience for Youth Task Force members.

Alameda Community Learning Center student Natalie shared multiple community connections, including memories of happy bus rides with family: “I’m motivated by Michele [Walker — Transform’s YTF liaison]! Maya (another learner at ACLC) invited me to join, and I thought it would be interesting. The project (social media) was really fun. It was great to do with people who are on the same page as you. In elementary school, I was motivated by being able to spend time with my grandparents. I always took the bus from the Oakland library with my grandma, and we’d walk up a hill to our house. I also always took the BART with my grandparents to San Francisco, and we’d walk around and eat food!

Katie, who goes to Irvington High School in Fremont, shared how community has inspired her to stay involved: “First year, I just joined because I wanted a thing to do! But then, I really liked the interaction with people. BikeMobile events, like getting free bike repair to help the community. Direct impact! When I was younger, I remember Golden Sneaker and was simply motivated by pride in shiny things!”

Giving youth the freedom to move — and have fun!

For many high school students who are old enough to go places on their own but too young to drive (or don’t want a driver’s license), feeling confident to ride a bike or take the bus means independence. The Youth Task Force gives students a chance to share the fun and independence with others.

Keenan from Alameda High School said, “One thing that motivates me to do SR2S work is my mom, who emphasized how important it is to be able to get to school independently. Also important to be eco-friendly. Now I realize this myself and think it’s important to help others do this too.”

Berkeley High School student Alex said, “I think what motivates me to work with SR2S is that I personally have been biking to school since kindergarten almost every single day and it gives me independence and is a really great tool for people to have. I also care about the environment and think that prompting environmentally friendly ways to get to school is beneficial. Also noticed that cars around BHS are really dangerous! Mostly, I want to encourage biking! I think in elementary school, I would have said pretty similarly that I want to support people biking to school. I remember doing Bike to School Day & Bike blenders from elementary school, and that was super fun!”

A desire to make public transit a better transportation option motivates Oakland Technical High School student Reba, who said, “My motivation would be different from elementary school. Now I’m seeing how people get to school and learning more laws about transportation in general, and noticing there is not much bike infrastructure and AC Transit is not always reliable. Doing SR2S is a way to make public transportation more accessible.”

Showing the next generation how to get around

Youth Task Force members are a force for change. They’re inspired to share their love of walking and rolling with younger students in a ripple effect that spreads change throughout Alameda County schools.

Dylan, who goes to Granada High School in Livermore, said, “At first, prior to joining — I am new to the Green Team club — I thought it would be a fun thing to do with my friend, who is an officer. I volunteered to join, not knowing what I was getting into, but after getting into it I saw it as a new opportunity to teach younger students what I wish I would have learned about. I had no idea about transportation’s effect on climate change or our environment because I hadn’t learned about it. I saw this as an opportunity to do so, and I thought that was cool. Now, I get to coordinate things for my current school and for the elementary school I went to. I get to give something back that I didn’t have that I wish I did!”

Jyoshika, an American High School student in Fremont, wants to help her fellow students gain environmental consciousness: “What motivates me now is to spread awareness about clean energy. In elementary school, I didn’t really care about the environment, and I’m really proud I’ve grown past that and am looking into environmental issues. I was a city girl and very into things that cause pollution, and didn’t care, but now I do! More environmental education and events in middle school and high school — I realized it was important!”

Transform 2024 Ballot Proposition Guide

October 17, 2024/in Blog, Housing, Policy, Transit, Transportation/by Transform Staff

Climate crisis mitigation, affordable housing, public transportation, and racial equity are all on the November 2024 ballot. Below, we offer Transform’s positions on relevant propositions and measures that move our mission forward and help move the needle on these crucial, urgent issues. This guide includes statewide measures and local ballot initiatives in each region of the Bay Area.

As a 501(c)3, Transform can take positions on ballot measures but cannot endorse candidates. We worked with the Transbay Coalition and other allies to gather candidate questionnaires on sustainable transportation. You can find links to the questionnaires here.

How to vote

You can confirm your voter registration and track your ballot in the mail. You can also sign up for text alerts to find out when your county election office processes your ballot. As a reminder, you have until Tuesday, November 5, to turn it back in or vote in person.

Important dates to keep in mind:

October 21 is the last day to register to vote.
November 5 is Election Day, and polls are open 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Find your polling place.

Short list of Transform positions on ballot propositions

Statewide

Yes on Prop 4

Yes on Prop 5

Yes on Prop 33

No on Prop 34

Local

SAN FRANCISCO Yes on Prop B Yes on Prop G Yes on Prop K Yes on Prop L	SOUTH BAY Yes on East Palo Alto Measure JJ Yes on San Mateo City Measure T
EAST BAY Yes on Albany Measure C Yes on Berkeley Measure BB No on Berkeley Measure CC No on Berkeley Measure EE Yes on Berkeley Measure FF Yes on Berkeley Measure W	NORTH BAY No on Fairfax Measure I Yes on Fairfax Measure J Yes on Larkspur Measure K Yes on Petaluma Measure Y Yes on San Anselmo Measure N Yes on San Anselmo Measure O

Detailed breakdown of Transform’s ballot measure positions

STATEWIDE

Yes on Prop 4: $10 billion for climate crisis mitigation
- Transform officially endorsed the Yes on Prop 4 Campaign early on. Prop 4 will make urgent investments in proven solutions for mitigating the deadly and destructive impact of the climate crisis. Without clean air and drinking water, people can not walk, bike, and roll safely. Vote yes on Prop 4. Supported by the California Green New Deal Coalition.
Yes on Prop 5: Lower the approval threshold needed for funding affordable housing and public infrastructure
- Transform officially endorsed the Yes on Prop 5 Campaign early on as well. Prop 5 will lower the voter approval threshold from 66% to 55% on housing and public infrastructure bonds. We urgently need to lower the systemic barriers to building new affordable housing and safer street infrastructure and this bond achieves that goal. Supported by Urban Habitat, Bike East Bay, East Bay Housing Organizations, and the California Green New Deal Coalition, among others. Vote yes on Prop 5, and please tell your friends to vote yes as well — this measure is crucial to allowing California communities to build a brighter future.
Yes on Prop 33: Remove limits on cities’ ability to adjust rent control regulations
- Voting Yes on Prop 33 repeals the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. The Act currently prohibits municipalities’ ability to adjust rent control policies such as imposing rent control on new developments built after 1995. Prop 33 will also prohibit the state from passing future restrictions. The proposition does not impose any rent control provision but merely frees local jurisdictions to enact renter protections that work in their communities. While rent control alone is not the ultimate panacea for our region’s housing crisis, it is an important tool that has improved the material conditions of the most vulnerable communities by protecting them from displacement. Supported by East Bay Housing Organizations and the California Green New Deal Coalition
No on Prop 34: Restrict how the AIDS Healthcare Foundation can spend funds
- This proposition targets a single entity: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). The organization has taken strong positions on tenant protections, earning the ire of the real estate industry. The requirements in this measure that nonprofit healthcare providers spend more on patient care might seem reasonable, but the qualifications written into the measure would apply to only one organization: AHF. It’s an attempt to stop AHF’s housing advocacy, and whether or not you agree with the organization’s positions, it’s a misuse of the proposition system that should not be rewarded with support. Opposed by East Bay Housing Organizations and the California Green New Deal Coalition. Vote No on Prop 34.

SAN FRANCISCO

Yes on Prop B: Funding for safer streets and shelter
- This bond measure would provide funding for public amenities, including community health centers, street and sidewalk safety, and more shelter or interim housing space. Supported by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition because of the funding for infrastructure improvements. Vote yes on Prop B.
Yes on Prop G: City funding to keep rental units affordable
- This would amend San Francisco’s charter and require the city to make annual contributions to an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund for Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. The city already provides supplemental payments to landlords to create affordable housing units. We urgently need more, and this dedicated funding will help ensure San Francisco maintains affordable rentals. Vote yes on Prop G.
Yes on Prop K: Convert Upper Great Highway from a road into a park for people
- Prop K will create a permanent car-free space on the Upper Great Highway by Ocean Beach, allowing a safer and more joyful experience for people enjoying San Francisco’s shoreline. Advocates have fought hard for this critical amenity since a COVID-era closure was rescinded. Supported by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Vote yes on Prop K.
Yes on Prop L: Tax ride-hail and autonomous vehicle businesses to fund crucial transit operations
- SFMTA is facing an existential crisis due to a lack of funding. Prop L would contribute an estimated $25 million to critical transit operations, preserving Muni services and allowing people with disabilities, low-income families, and older adults to continue to travel around the region. Supported by Urban Habitat and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Vote yes on L.

EAST BAY:

Yes on Albany Measure C: Approve tax funding for sidewalks and pathways
- More funding is urgently needed that is specifically dedicated to safer street infrastructure. Supported by Bike East Bay. Vote yes on Measure C.
Yes on Berkeley Measure BB: Fund housing retention programs and expand tenant protections
- This measure, supported by Berkeley renters and the city’s Rent Control Board, strengthens renter protections and lowers the cap on rent increases. Urban Habitat joins us in supporting a yes vote on Measure BB.
No on Berkeley Measure CC: Limit and change tenant protections
- The mirror image of Measure BB, CC raises the cap on rent increases slightly and limits the power of Berkeley’s Rent Control Board. Urban Habitat urges a no vote on Measure CC and so do we.

*If both Berkeley Measures BB and CC pass, the measure with the most votes will win.

No on Berkeley Measure EE: Competing with Measure FF with less funding, no guarantees for safer street infrastructure
- Measure EE is in direct contention with Measure FF. Transform encourages you to vote no on Measure EE as it does not include a guaranteed dedicated revenue for safer street infrastructure and would also bring in less funding than Measure FF. We need to push for maximum funding for safe streets, not settle for potential scraps that are subject to political will. Bike East Bay opposes this measure. Vote no on Measure EE.
Yes on Berkeley Measure FF: Parcel tax to fund safer streets for all
- Measure FF is a proposed Berkeley parcel tax of 17¢ per lot square foot residential and 25¢ commercial that will fund paving activities across the city and require bike/walk plan implementation to ensure that smoother streets don’t just lead to more speeding. Bike East Bay supports this measure. Vote yes on Measure FF.

*If both Berkeley Measures EE and FF pass, the measure with the most votes will win.

Yes on Berkeley Measure W: Parcel taxes to support homeless services
- In 2018, Berkeley voters adopted Measure P, which raised the transfer tax on properties sold for over $1.5 million, with the revenue going to support homeless services. Measure W changes the formula. The tax increase, from 1.5% to 2.5% starts at $1.6 million and the rate increases progressively for higher-dollar real estate transactions. Supported by East Bay Housing Organizations. Vote yes on Measure W.

SOUTH BAY:

Yes on East Palo Alto Measure JJ:
- This measure would divert revenue collected from an existing 2.5% tax on gross receipts from a general fund to instead go towards rental assistance for tenants and other types of housing assistance such as affordable home ownership, affordable housing preservation, protecting residents from displacement or homelessness, and administrative expenses. The San Mateo Anti-Displacement Coalition and Urban Habitat support this measure. Vote Yes on Measure JJ.
Yes on San Mateo City Measure T: Allow San Mateo to build more housing by Caltrain and along key corridors like El Camino Real
- A great opportunity to rebuke outdated zoning and build more housing near transit, a key strategy to curbing intersectional climate and housing crises.

NORTH BAY:

No on Fairfax Measure I:
- This measure would repeal Fairfax’s current Just Cause Eviction Ordinance and Rent Stabilization Ordinance passed in 2022 and replace it with the state standards put forth in the Contra-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Opposition includes Canal Alliance, Public Advocates, Urban Habitat, and Tenants Together. Vote no on Measure I.
Yes on Fairfax Measure J:
- This measure would allow for investment in safer street infrastructure, with dedicated investment in protected bike lanes and safer crosswalks by schools. This funding would also unlock millions in additional federal grant support needed to continue to design and build safer streets for all roadway users. Supported by Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure J.
Yes on Larkspur Measure K: Establish rent control in Larkspur
- Grassroots organizing brought this measure to the ballot. It will cap rent increases at 3%, or 60% of inflation — whichever is lower — and establishes other tenant rights. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure K.
Yes on Petaluma Measure Y: Extend Petaluma’s urban growth boundary
- This measure preserves farmland and encourages the kind of dense, infill development the North Bay needs to combat climate change. Sprawl is a major driver of climate-killing emissions; vote yes on Measure Y.
Yes on San Anselmo Measure N: Establish rent control in San Anselmo
- This measure caps rent increases for buildings with three units or more at 60% of inflation or 5%, whichever is less. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure N.
Yes on San Anselmo Measure O: Affirm tenant protection in San Anselmo
- This ballot measure confirms tenant protections already in place, such as compensation for evictions without just cause and rent control. Vote yes on Measure N to protect sensible tenant protections. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates.

Please share this guide with your network, and don’t forget to vote by Tuesday, November 5th!

Transform and Allies Call Out Plan to Streamline Highway 37 Widening

September 5, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transportation/by Zack Deutsch-Gross

In late August, Transform joined with 24 environmental, transportation, and other advocacy organizations to send a letter to California Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire opposing a plan to amend a 2023 law. The law provided special streamlining privileges under California’s endangered species laws to certain clean energy and water infrastructure projects. This year’s amendment would have extended those special streamlining privileges to a project to widen State Route 37 between Vallejo and State Route 121 in Sonoma County, which will have significant impacts on a sensitive salt marsh habitat.

SR 37 does often experience traffic congestion, but decades of research and lived experience have proven that adding lanes does not solve congestion. And, at its core, the proposal to widen the highway is the wrong solution to a very complicated but completely different problem.

How to drown $500 million

The project to add lanes to SR 37 is described as “interim.” That’s because the $500 million the state proposes spending to add capacity to this highway segment, which is right at sea level and is regularly inundated during king tides, will likely be underwater due to climate change within 15 years. The long-term proposal is to raise the roadbed to accommodate future sea level rise, a much more expensive and involved undertaking.

The irony of building additional lanes that will increase driving, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions, on a roadway that is likely to be submerged by climate change appears to be lost on planners.

Real problems—real solutions

The reason for the congestion on SR 37 is rooted in economics as much as transportation policy. Sonoma County has a dearth of affordable housing, so many of the people who work in its vineyards and tourist industry live in more affordable communities in Solano County. Those workers must drive to their jobs in Sonoma County towns and cities because of a lack of public transportation options.

Widening the highway is an acceptance of an unacceptable status quo, where working-class people are forced into long, expensive commutes.

The solution is two-fold. Sonoma County must build more housing, particularly more affordable housing, so employees have the opportunity to live closer to their places of work. This is a long-term project that won’t be easy, but it’s essential.

The second solution is to provide more frequent and reliable transit options between Solano and Sonoma cities. This could be accomplished fairly quickly. In our letter, we recommend tolling on the existing lanes of SR 37. The revenue this generates could support expanded public transportation. The tolling scheme could be designed to minimize the cost to low-income households and would cost substantially less than $500 million to implement.

Over the long term, passenger rail is planned for this corridor to connect to the Capitol Corridor service between Sacramento and the Bay Area, which will provide another alternative to driving in the future.

Facing the realities of climate change

Highway expansion should no longer be a default solution to congestion. In congested corridors like Highway 37, widening will only serve to increase driving and ultimately worsen congestion. Choosing to invest in alternative solutions will not be easy; California has entrenched administrative structures and industries built around expanding highways, so change must include just transitions for workers and businesses.

But, despite the challenge, we must change the way we think about transportation planning. Our freeway mentality has driven us to the brink of climate catastrophe. A future focused on infill housing development, housing affordability, and a broad array of low- and no-carbon transportation options is the only way to move toward a more stable and liveable planet.

Read the full letter.

Sign on Letter_ Oppose Backdoor Streamlining for HW 37 Download

Gendered Perspectives of Bay Area Transit – Event Series September 2024

August 30, 2024/in Blog, Transit, Transportation/by Nicolay Kreidler

We Still Have a Path to an Excellent Regional Transportation Measure — With Your Help

August 22, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transit, Transportation/by Abibat Rahman-Davies

Representatives from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) joined a Voices for Public Transportation (VPT) meeting on August 21 to outline three scenarios under consideration for a regional transportation measure. Transform and VPT believe the Go Big Framework deserves strong support, while the other options fall short of what we need to ensure transit transformation. We’re rallying people who care about the future of public transportation in the Bay Area to attend the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee meeting on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco, in the first floor board room. If you can’t attend in person, consider joining on Zoom or sending public comments by email to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 23.

Here’s what you need to know about the scenarios MTC is considering and talking points to support a robust transit funding measure.

Core Transit Scenario: The opt-in option

This option would cover San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, with an option for the other five Bay Area counties to opt in. It proposes a half-cent sales tax and would raise money to fund the agencies operating in those counties: BART, AC Transit, MUNI, and Caltrain.

MTC estimates this option would raise $540 million annually from these four counties and $1 billion if all nine counties opt-in. In this scenario, 10% of the funding would go to region-wide transit transformation projects. MTC would have to find additional funding to cover those projects in counties that don’t opt-in. The remaining 90% would initially shore up funding for transit operations before shifting entirely to county-by-county discretionary transportation spending.

Unfortunately, the Core Transit Scenario would not fill the broader operating funding need in a way that keeps our transit systems running without service cuts. It is hard to imagine that voters would vote to increase their taxes for a measure that would result in service cuts. While some flexibility for counties is needed, the Core Transit Scenario would give counties carte blanche on two-thirds of the entire measure without any guarantees that the money would be spent on needed investments in transit, walking, and biking as opposed to harmful highway expansion projects.

The Go Big Framework: A nine-county solution

The second scenario MTC is considering would raise $1.5 billion annually through a 0.54% payroll tax or a $0.28 per square foot parcel tax across all nine Bay Area counties.

This scenario would allocate 20% of funds to transit transformation, with 10% going to MTC for regional projects and 10% returned to counties. It would allocate 50% of funding to operators to maintain their 2023 levels of service initially, with amounts adjusted for inflation after that. The remaining 30% would be county-by-county discretionary transportation spending, known as county flex funds, for use on any projects included in Plan Bay Area. This could include road repairs, new bike lanes, or transit improvements, but it could also mean adding highways.

One of the sticking points in negotiating a region-wide measure is the desire of counties to keep the revenues raised locally rather than subsidizing operations in other counties. Transform is recommending a guaranteed 90% of the revenue raised in a county would be returned to that county over the life of the measure to address this concern.

While Transform opposes any regional transportation revenue going to highway expansion, we believe this is by far the best scenario presented by MTC and look forward to improving it further. It uses a progressive revenue source, gives a great deal of autonomy to counties to serve the varied needs of their residents, gives robust funding to transit transformation, and, most importantly, fills the transportation funding deficit.

Scenario Three: Going it alone

The final scenario is to abandon the project of a regional transportation revenue measure entirely. The MTC’s only role would be to seek authority for local jurisdictions to run their own ballot measures to raise revenue. This option would provide no transit transformation funding and wouldn’t guarantee the future of the Bay Area’s interconnected transit network. It would be particularly challenging for multi-county operators like BART and Caltrain and cities like San Francisco that could see three separate transit funding measures on the same ballot. Many Bay Area residents live and work in different counties, and funding a harmonized and fully operational regional transit network serves everyone’s needs. Further, putting multiple transportation funding measures on the ballot will confuse voters, making it more likely these measures would fail.

Speak up for regional transit transformation

MTC is hearing a lot of loud voices from different interest groups right now. They need to hear from those of us who want a revenue measure that will protect our regional transit system, share the costs proportionately, with those of greater means contributing the most, and bring about transit transformation, encouraging more people to ride instead of drive.

If you can attend in person, attend virtually, or submit a public comment, here are questions and talking points Transform and VPT suggest raising to MTC:

The number of counties that will get funded matters. Will we get a measure that excludes transit riders in the North Bay and South Bay, or will our measure help everyone?
The revenue mechanism should be progressive. Will the measure be funded by a sales tax, which hurts working people, or will it be funded by those with the most ability to pay?
The amount of money raised needs to be enough to keep transit fully operational or the whole purpose is defeated. Some scenarios won’t even keep transit funding at the levels they are today, which we all know is already inadequate. How will MTC ensure the measure includes adequate funding for all transit operators?

Please speak up for regional transit funding at the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee meeting on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.:

In-person: Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco, in the first floor Board Room
On Zoom
Or send public comments by email to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 23.

Working together, we can save public transit in the Bay Area!

Carrie Harvilla at USDOT Climate Symposium

Transform Joins Transportation and Climate Symposium

July 25, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transportation/by Carrie Harvilla

Transform Deputy Director Carrie Harvilla with Eli Lipmen from Move LA and Zak Accuardi from the Natural Resources Defense Council

I was thrilled to attend a Transportation and Climate Symposium hosted by the U.S. Department of Transportation on July 11 and 12. At the gathering, hundreds of decision-makers from the private and public sectors — including state, regional, tribal, and local government representatives from across the country — gathered to share and learn about innovative solutions to decarbonize our transportation systems and create more accessible and affordable mobility options for all Americans.

Here are highlights from the conference.

Convenient, Efficient, Clean

Throughout the symposium, representatives across sectors stressed the need for a multi-modal transportation future that is “Convenient, Efficient, Clean.” Transform would add equitable to this list because equity must be part of our climate solutions.

In a workshop focused on shared bikes and e-bikes, I heard echoes of the work Transform has done to raise the profile and expand access to micro-mobility options, like our report, Shared Mobility: How Shared Bikes and Scooters Can Support an Equitable, Climate-Friendly Transportation Netwo rk. Panelists from USDOT, e-bike manufacturers, and bikeshare companies discussed micromobility as a first- and last-mile solution that must be included as a part of comprehensive transportation planning. Transform is already working on putting these ideas into practice.

At a lively philanthropy roundtable, grantmakers stressed the importance of decision-makers understanding that investing in transportation systems change is critical to addressing other national and global issues. For example, addressing the wealth gap relies on frequent and affordable mobility options for folks to get to their jobs and educational opportunities. Fostering a strong democracy requires convenient transportation and safe streets so that all voters can get to the polls. If transportation is a barrier to voting, we can’t have a truly representative government..

USDOT looks at decarbonizing transportation

At the event, the USDOT released Decarbonizing U.S. Transportation. Like California’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), the report addresses GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Also like California, transportation is the largest single source of climate-killing emissions, with about 16% of carbon emissions coming from light-duty vehicles such as cars and pickup trucks.

The report suggests strategies for creating a convenient, efficient, clean transportation system, many of which are programs Transform is working on currently or has promoted in the past. These include micromobility, congestion pricing, recognizing the connections between affordable housing and convenient transportation, transit-oriented development, active transportation, and investing in public transit.

It was great to connect with others who care passionately about these issues from around the country, to share ideas and inspiration. Transform has been working on these issues for more than 25 years, and we will continue to be a leader and innovator in this space. We look forward to many more years of fruitful collaboration to create vibrant, climate-resilient, affordable neighborhoods in the Bay Area and beyond.