Voting Against The Bay Area Transit Measure Is a Fatal Mistake
The author rebuts an editorial opposing Measure RTM, a Bay Area transit funding measure, by fact-checking claims about BART's service levels and spending while arguing that opposing the measure ignores transit's critical role in preventing regional gridlock and that service cuts would spiral into ridership loss.
Summary
The article is a point-by-point refutation of an editorial from the East Bay Times and San Jose Mercury News opposing Measure RTM, a proposed 0.5-1% sales tax increase to fund Bay Area transit for 14 years. The author systematically dismantles several key claims made by the editorial board. First, regarding the claim that BART has not reduced service, the author provides specific data showing BART cut Transbay Tube peak service by 17%, reduced train cars from 9-10 to 6 during peak hours, and has reduced service on all lines except one. Second, the author refutes the claim that BART has not cut costs, citing $516 million in operational spending reductions and $549 million in capital spending cuts since 2020, and notes that BART is the 7th most cost-effective passenger rail system in the country. The author explains that apparent high ridership costs stem from reduced usage frequency (2-3 times weekly instead of 5 days), not absolute ridership numbers, and argues that cutting service further would worsen the cost-per-rider ratio rather than improve it. Regarding VTA, the author argues the editorial's critique is incomplete, noting that BART's South Bay lines depend on VTA subsidies and that Caltrain, which the editorial ignored entirely, would face severe service cuts if the measure fails. The author addresses the regressive taxation argument by highlighting that the editorial ignores how high individual BART fares—already among the world's most expensive—are also regressive and that gridlocked freeways would increase overall regional costs. The author then critiques the editorial's demand for 'right-sized' service by pointing out the editorial provides no specifics on what this means and cites no examples of transit agencies successfully growing ridership after major service cuts. The author argues the oversight concerns are overstated, explaining that advisory committees typically make recommendations without veto power and that BART has an elected board and state oversight. The author contrasts the scrutiny applied to BART with the lack of accountability demanded from Caltrans, which receives far more funding but faces criticism for crumbling infrastructure and unsafe conditions. Finally, the author concludes by invoking historical memory of the 1989 earthquake and 2013 BART strike when transit was critical, and warns that without support, Bay Area transit could become as abandoned as past regional systems, resulting in the region's complete car-dependency.
About this episode
The East Bay Times and Mercury News Editorial Board write a bad column on the transit tax measure.
Key Insights
- The author demonstrates that BART has actually reduced service by 17% on Transbay routes and shifted from 9-10 car trains to 6-car trains during peak hours, directly contradicting editorial claims that service levels remain unchanged.
- The author argues that cutting transit service further would economically backfire because BART's high fixed costs mean service reductions don't proportionally reduce budgets, while simultaneously losing riders and worsening the cost-per-rider ratio.
- The author asserts the editorial board employs a double standard by criticizing BART's 'regressive' sales tax while ignoring that their advocated alternative—raising individual transit fares—is even more regressive since it falls only on transit users.
- The author claims that BART and Caltrain ridership and service levels directly determine VTA bus system viability; if rail service to South Bay stations is cut, riders will shift to cars instead of transferring to buses, creating a cascading service collapse across the entire region.
- The author contends that road agencies like Caltrans receive vastly more public funding and face minimal scrutiny for infrastructure failures and safety issues, while transit agencies like BART face disproportionate demands for fiscal accountability and efficiency measures.
Topics
Transcript
AP Photo: At 5:40 AM traffic on Bay Area highways was virtually impassible because BART was not running service during the union strike of 2013. If Measure RTM does not pass, this may become the norm. Disclaimer: this article does not represent the views of my employer. — I didn’t feel a pressing need to write about Measure RTM—the Bay Area Transit Bailout sales tax—because it’s self-evident how necessary its passage is. But I forgot that not everyone understands how privileged the Bay Area is to have public transit, which regardless of whether you use it or not, keeps traffic levels from becoming unmovable in a growing region that’s geographically constrained. Among those who don’t understand are the members of…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access