San Mateo and Santa Clara County inch closer toward regional transit funding measure
Last week, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties inched closer toward participating in a regional transportation funding measure. San Mateo County softened its shocking position against funding seamless transit, and both counties are negotiating on governance options for the funds.
There are more key meetings in San Mateo County this week, and in both counties over the next couple of months as the July decision deadline nears. Click here to speak up in person or in writing to support seamless transit and rider-friendly governance.
On Thursday, May 1, the VTA board reviewed its polling data which showed equivalent results for a half percent local sales tax and an eighth cent variable rate regional tax, both polling at 57% (see chart below). In its discussion, the board overall leaned toward participating in the regional tax at a half-cent level in 2026 (option 2 below), while maintaining a backup of option 4, a new half-cent county-specific tax in 2028 that would renew and increase the local tax.
Both options polled at the 57% level, similar to multiple other polls of regional and local options over the last year.
At a half-cent level, there would be $200 million available for other local county priorities, such as funding VTA Visionary Network local service improvements and pothole repair, after addressing obligations to Caltrain and regional transit coordination, if a regional measure would allow those funds to return to the county that paid the tax.
The board members who preferred option 2 considered that with voter support in the mid-50s, a poll could be passed with a citizens’ initiative which needs to exceed 50% to pass, but the mid-50s is well below the two thirds level needed for a measure put on the ballot by a government entity. Given that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the entity that led and funded measures in the past, is no longer in that business, Santa Clara County would be better off with a regional measure citizens’ initiative that would be led by other sponsors.
A few board members preferred the local tax option for the greatest local control, while a majority of board members wanted to maintain the option 4 local tax to help with a negotiating position.
The board did not discuss the options and consequences if Santa Clara County held off on a measure until 2028, while Caltrain and BART are expected to start running steep deficits before then.
Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties also had preferences for oversight on the funding, read on for more detail about the governance options.
San Mateo County inches closer toward regional measure with polling
San Mateo County also inched closer to a regional measure last week as the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) approved funding to poll on options for a local or regional measure. San Mateo County’s Measure A otherwise expires in 2033.
Former congresswoman Jackie Speier, who currently serves on the County Board of Supervisors and the SMCTA board, was the sole vote against polling, contending that because of affordability concerns, taxpayers would not support a measure, but would instead vote to extend and change the spending mix of the existing Measure A, at a level that would result in cuts to BART, Caltrain, and local transit service (see more detail in this blog post). Other board members did not agree with these assumptions and voted to fund the polling.
SMCTA staff also clarified that provisions in the letter sent to the Senate Committee chairs earlier in the month, with a shocking proposal to eliminate funding for popular regional coordination programs, were not actually a list of bright line demands, but was a set of goals identified from a variety of board members that would be the starting point of negotiations. Responding to board member comments and public comments about the importance of improving coordination and ease of use of the transit system, staff clarified that they wanted to see greater clarity and accountability and potentially lower amounts for the “transit transformation” category.
Preferences for oversight
San Mateo County leaders and VTA leaders all want to see governance of funds in a manner that provides more local control than the 9-county MTC-based proposal in the bill draft.
The concern is that if, say, Napa County is not participating in the measure, Napa County reps should not weigh in on the funds from the 4-5 counties that contribute to the tax. Also though, where a regional measure provides funds for a 9-county policy such as free/reduced price transfers, counties that pay for fare integration with the regional measure source should not be able to unilaterally change a 9-county policy, but should use the funds according to the 9-county policy.
There are a few logical options about how to provide that subregional control. One proposal being floated is to have the funds managed by a subset of the Transportation Authorities.
If it is to be done by transportation authorities working in parallel, this creates time conflicts for members of the public who want to observe and comment. For example, the SMCTA board and VTA board meet at the same time, an unrealistic expectation (this blogger covered both meetings, but that is not a reasonable thing to do).
If it is done by a collection of County Transportation Authorities working together, this would create a brand new body, something that transportation leaders have consistently said they want to avoid in discussions about modifying Bay Area transit governance to improve rider-friendliness. Another challenge is that TA board members and staff spent the vast majority of their time on single-county topics. If there are challenges requiring multi-county decision-making, a body that meets rarely, composed of single-county focused leaders who do not get regular practices working on multi-county issues, will not be best suited to dealing with multi-county challenges.
Another logical option, which some staff and policymakers say they may consider, is a committee composed of a subset of MTC Commissioners from the counties participating in the measure. These Commissioners will have regular practice at dealing with multi-county issues, so will have an orientation toward multi-county problem-solving.
The staff and board members we talked to in the last week said that they had only just started to think through these issues. There are 2-3 months left to think through and make decisions to shape the bill and the governance of the funding.
This coming week, the SamTrans and C/CAG boards are meeting, and riders have opportunities to speak up in favor of participating in regionally coordinated approaches to funding that prevent cuts, improve coordination, and have governance options accountable to riders and stakeholders that depend on transit. And there will be important opportunities to weigh in, in both counties over the next couple of months, as the July decision deadline nears.
Click here for to speak up in person or in writing. We’ll keep you posted every step of the way on opportunities for action.