Tag Archive for: Bay Area

The Train Has Gone Off the Tracks: People Are Speaking Up but MTC Is not Listening

After SB 1031, a bill to fund Bay Area transit, was withdrawn, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) set up a special select committee to craft a regional transit measure that could gain wide support. The commission meets monthly through October to set up a framework for a new funding bill to be sent to the legislature at the start of the 2025 session. 

On September 23, 2024, MTC held a meeting of the Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee that should have produced a near-final version of the measure for ratification in October. Unfortunately, the meeting ended without consensus. While all members agreed that transit desperately needs to be funded, how exactly it should be funded has been up for debate. We understand the challenge of bringing together many diverse stakeholders with sometimes opposing interests, but it’s a challenge MTC must meet.

Contentious MTC meeting

At the September select committee meeting, members were asked to vote on two different scenarios that have been continually refined at each of the previous meetings. The Core scenario — which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties — has an opt-in for the other counties and is funded through a sales tax. The Hybrid Scenario (formerly the Go Big Scenario) includes all nine counties and aims to sustain current service levels and close operator-reported deficits with funding from a ½ cent sales tax combined with a payroll tax. 

Disagreements came to a head as select committee members were asked to express their support for the scenarios through a gradient of agreement: 1 — strongly agree, 2 — have some reservations but agree, 3 — neutral but strong reservations, 4 — will go along but have strong reservations, or  5 — strongly disagree. The tallied vote showed virtually a tie between the two scenarios, with both scenarios around 3.8. This score reflects weak support, and many commissioners advocated for a third option that was not brought up for a vote: the Hunger Games scenario. That option would largely remove MTC from the picture, leaving individual counties and transit agencies to run their own, sometimes competing, funding measures. This level of disagreement further illustrates the deadlock on the committee on how to save our failing transit systems.

Turning a deaf ear to the public — and MTC’s charter

Which scenario the MTC special select committee will ultimately choose to save our transit systems is unclear, but what is clear is that many commissioners are out of step with what the community is demanding. The committee voted on the scenarios before public comments were even made, so their votes weren’t influenced by public input. In fact, during public comments, many commissioners left the room. 

In explaining his vote, one commissioner, who voted “strongly disagree” for both scenarios, stated that while he wants to find a solution, he is not optimistic, and he doesn’t believe MTC is even the right place to create a solution to fund our transit system. However, according to California law, the role of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is “to provide comprehensive regional transportation planning for the region comprised of the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.”(emphasis added). It’s precisely MTC’s primary role to solve this issue, so if MTC is not the right arena for this, then who is?

Regressive funding sources

Advocacy groups and many members of the public have called for a solution that doesn’t add to the financial burden that disenfranchised groups face. Yet many MTC commissioners have continued to push for scenarios funded either completely or mostly by regressive taxes such as a sales tax. 

Progressive revenue sources like parcel and payroll taxes have strong community support. The committee removed the parcel tax because of concerns about overusing it, since it is a potential funding source for the housing bond. 

The business community spoke up fervently against a negligible 0.18% payroll tax, claiming that it sent a bad message to Bay Area businesses. The commission seemed very concerned about the business community’s opposition to a payroll tax, and many commissioners spoke up in agreement with the business community’s disapproval of the payroll tax. However, many members of the public mentioned during public comment that they liked a payroll tax because they felt that businesses should pay their fair share toward the transit services they rely on.

Bay Area transit is regional — we need a regional solution

Keeping our transit systems fully funded and operating reliably is a regional problem that needs a regional solution. Unfortunately, during the select committee process and especially in the September meeting, many commissioners have been focused on their county’s benefit and fairness for their county, failing to see the big picture. 

Many commissioners also continued to push for the Hunger Games scenario. However, people don’t use transit systems by county; they ride regionally. Someone might get on a bus in one county, connect to BART in another county, and then take MUNI or Caltrain at the other end. A failure of any of our transit systems would be catastrophic for the whole region, not just one county, so we need to solve this problem together.  

In addition, multiple measures introduce multiple points of failure. We already fund big capital projects regionally, so we should be able to fund transit operations regionally.

Speak up for public transit

MTC’s October special select committee meeting will decide on the final solution to submit to the legislature. We need you to call in and tell MTC commissioners that they need to get the train back on the tracks. Ask them to listen to the voices of the people who will vote for the measure and of transit riders.

No one wants Bay Area transit systems to fail or be forced into drastic service cuts. The MTC must put forth a regional scenario that covers the deficit, is long-term, and is funded by mostly progressive revenue sources. Transform and our allies at Voices for Public Transit are working hard to support this scenario. We are deeply grateful to everyone who has come to meetings and spoken out. While the Hybrid (formerly Go Big) scenario is not the perfect option, it is a regional solution that would save transit operations, and you are the reason it is still being considered. Please come out one more time on October 21. Help us win approval for a regional solution.

Transform and Allies Call Out Plan to Streamline Highway 37 Widening

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.

Losing SB 1031: Setback for Regional Transportation Measure, Not the End

Tell Your Representatives: Commit to Funding Transit, not Highways, with Regional Funding Measure

The Latest from Transform

Stay informed on our work to create more equitable, just, and affordable housing and transportation in California.

Address:
1721 Broadway, Suite 201
Oakland, CA 94612

Get in Touch:
510.740.3150
[email protected]

© 2025 Transform. All rights reserved.