Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

BART Board votes 8-1 to close up to 15 stations if proposed tax measure fails

By Leave a Comment

The BART Board voted to close four stations in Contra Costa County if the proposed Nov. sales tax measure fails. Source: BART

Contra Costa’s 4 representatives vote to adopt Alternative Service Plan to balance budget including 1,170 employee layoffs

Ridership still down 50% post-COVID

By Allen D. Payton

On Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026, the BART Board of Directors, on vote of 8-1, adopted an Alternative Service Plan outlining specific budget balancing details to solve a $376M deficit for the next fiscal year if no new funds become available to BART. According to a District press release, BART is facing a structural deficit of $350M to $400M because ridership is still down 50% compared to pre-pandemic levels and BART’s current funding model relies heavily on passenger fares.

As previously reported by the Herald, the stations on the list for potential Phase 1 closure in January 2027 include the 10 lowest ridership stations: North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center, Oakland International Airport, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Castro Valley, San Bruno, South Hayward, South San Francisco and Warm Springs/South Fremont.

Phase 2 Closures Include Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations

The Phase 2 – July 2027 Segment Closure Scenario, Contingent on Phase 1 implementation, would result in a 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles; Segment closures would stop service on most system segments opened after 1976: Yellow line service would end at Concord, shuttering the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations; Orange line service would end at Bay Fair,; Blue line service would be discontinued shuttering the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station; Most stations south of Daly City would be closed except for direct service to SFO would continue for revenue retention; Service continues to Milpitas and Berryessa due to terms of BART/VTA agreements.

Based on Proposed Transit Tax Measure Failing

The plan is based on the assumption a sales tax increase measure proposed for the November ballot in five Bay Area counties fails. As previously reported, voters would be asked to consider a one-half sales tax increase in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and a one-cent sales tax increase in San Francisco County. The 14-year regional transportation sales tax would generate approximately $980 million annually with 60 percent dedicated to preserving service on BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit, as well as San Francisco Bay Ferry and smaller transit agencies providing service in the five counties to keep buses, trains and ferries moving, including WestCat, County Connection and Tri Delta Transit. About one-third of the revenue would go to Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission, with flexibility to use funds for transit capital, operations, or road paving projects on roads with regular bus service.

Also, as previously reported, an effort is underway to gather signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The sales tax increase would be in addition to the half-cent sales tax for BART operations in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco counties in place since the 1960’s.

Motion and Vote Details

Following public comments and discussion among the Board members a vote was taken on the following motion: The Board adopts the attached Resolution “In the Matter of Initially Approving an Alternative Service Plan to Take Effect January 2027 in the Event the Connect Bay Area Measure Fails to Receive Voter Approval at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026 and BART is Unable to Secure Other Revenue Sources.”

The motion was made by District 4 Director Robert Raburn, seconded by District 1 Director Matt Rinn, and passed on a vote of 8-1 with the additional support of District 7 Director Victor Flores, District 2 Director Mark Foley, District 3 Director Barnali Gosh, District 8 Director Janice Li, Board Vice President and District 9 Director Edward Wright and Board President and District 5 Director Melissa Hernandez.

District 6 Director Liz Ames was the only member of the Board of Directors to vote “No”.

Rinn represents portions of Central Contra Costa County, all of Lamorinda and most of the San Ramon Valley, Foley represents portions of Central County and all of East County, Gosh represents all of West County and Hernandez represents portions of San Ramon.

Approved Plan Details

The plan includes specific cuts and financial strategies needed to balance both the FY27 (July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027) and FY28 (July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028) budgets. The plan includes service cuts, station closures, fare increases, a 40% reduction in system support services, laying off 1,170 employees and a series of deferrals and one-time resources. The plan does not name specific stations to be closed and makes clear the BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station closures. You can read the Alternative Service Plan resolution, resolution attachment and presentation to the BART Board.

BART has already made budget cuts across all departments and instituted a series of cost controls, including rightsizing service, labor savings, operational efficiencies, and reducing BART’s office space footprint. At the same time, BART has also worked to increase revenue by installing new fare gates, leasing out BART parking lots, and offering new fare products such as Clipper BayPass. View a detailed list of cost savings implement by BART at bart.gov/fiscalcliff.

Alternative Service Plan Details

To take place in January 2027:

  • 3-line service (Yellow, Blue, and Orange line service only, with limited peak service in only the peak commute direction on the Red and Green lines).
  • 30-minute frequencies on every line.
  • Closing at 9 pm seven days a week.
  • This service plan represents a 63% reduction in train hours.
  • 30% fare and parking fee increases (the estimated average fare would increase from $4.98 to $6.38).
  • Target approximately $30M in savings over 6 months from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
  • Continue deferrals of priority capital allocations and retiree medical contributions.
  • Balance remainder of FY27 with one-time resources and financial deferrals.

Following the January 2027 cuts, staff will continuously assess ridership and revenue impacts and the performance of all District functions to determine if further reductions can be safely and legally implemented.

To take place in July 2027 if feasibly safe:

  • Target over $175M in annual cost reductions through a cumulative 70% reduction in service hours:
  • Maintain 3-line service, 30-minute frequencies on each line, closing at 9pm.
  • Close up to 15 stations and/or up to 25% of system track miles.
  • The BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station or line segment closures.
  • Increase fares and parking fees up to a cumulative 50%. The estimated average fare would increase to $7.26.
  • Target annual operating expense savings of more than a cumulative $130M from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
  • Continue to defer retiree health contributions; defer most remaining capital allocations.

Contingency:

  • If at any point it is determined BART can’t safely or legally operate with available resources, stop passenger service.
  • Use existing District tax revenues to secure system assets.
  • Work to determine system’s future.

Use of the State Loan  

BART can’t use state loan money to avoid station closures and service cuts if no new revenue becomes available because without new revenue, there is no way to pay the loan back. The state loan primarily helps with cash flow if a November 2026 transit funding measure is successful. It is a bridge loan that gives BART reassurances money will be available to continue to deliver the best service possible until the sales tax dollars from the successful ballot measure become available for BART’s use. This is projected to happen in July 2027 but could take longer. If a funding measure succeeds, BART will use $97M in loan funds to help balance the FY27 budget.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Taxpayers Association president suggests merging Contra Costa bus agencies to save costs instead of tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Marc Joffe

Bay Area transit agencies are seeking another half-cent sales tax in November. While most of the $980 million a year in new revenue will go to BART, Muni and AC Transit, smaller agencies will also receive extra tax money, evading the need to reform. Contra Costa County will continue to have multiple bus operators, including two sharing the territory east of the Caldecott. Before voters agree to pour more public money into this hodgepodge of agencies, they should ask whether there are opportunities for reform.

Central and Eastern Contra Costa County are currently split between two distinct bus agencies. Tri Delta Transit covers eastern communities like Antioch and Brentwood, while County Connection serves central hubs including Walnut Creek and Concord. Together, they cover a combined service area of more than 800,000 residents. Both feed riders into BART, yet they maintain completely separate executive teams, planning departments, procurement offices, and administrative staff. In 2024, these two agencies spent a combined $79.8 million to deliver 4.1 million bus rides at an average cost of $19.39 per trip—of which passenger fares covered just $1.33, leaving taxpayers to subsidize the remaining $18.07 per ride.

The financial unsustainability of this arrangement is glaring when looking at farebox recovery and utilization. Passenger fares cover just 7.8 percent of operating costs at County Connection and an even worse 5.5 percent at Tri Delta Transit, meaning taxpayers shoulder nearly the entire burden for systems where 40-foot buses frequently circulate with almost no one on board. The redundancy also affects riders, with Tri Delta’s Route 201X running deep into Concord and County Connection’s Route 93X crossing into Antioch.  Riders navigating this corridor face separate fare structures and schedules simply to preserve two entrenched bureaucracies where one would clearly suffice.

My recent California Policy Center analysis of the state’s 85 transit operators highlighted the need to consolidate smaller agencies to rein in administrative overhead, a problem acutely visible at County Connection. The agency employs 249 people directly and negotiates with three distinct labor unions, driving salaries and benefits to $28.7 million, which consumes 62 percent of its $46.4 million operating budget. Tri Delta Transit, conversely, demonstrates the fiscal advantages of leveraging private sector efficiencies. Rather than inflating a massive public payroll, Tri Delta contracts its bus operations to a private company, Transdev, keeping its own overhead lean while retaining fleet ownership. Tri Delta has also pioneered microtransit with its Tri MyRide app, recognizing that deploying a shared van is far more sensible than running a near-empty 40-foot bus on a fixed loop through low-density neighborhoods.

The perverse incentives of the current funding model guarantee that meaningful reform will be ignored in favor of demanding more tax revenue. Merging the two agencies under a single general manager and board, while competitively contracting all operations, could save millions in administrative, operating, and capital costs.

It is important to recognize that Contra Costa bus agencies are not providing a meaningful solution for climate change or congestion. Federal transit data cross-referenced with the Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book reveals that Contra Costa’s highly subsidized buses average just four passengers and burn 8,400 BTU of energy per passenger-mile, which is more than double the energy intensity of a typical SUV and triple that of a passenger car.  Furthermore, Google’s Environmental Insights Explorer indicates that buses account for a statistically insignificant 0.31 percent of all trips in the county, meaning that additional bus funding from the new sales tax won’t alleviate congestion on Interstate 680 or Highway 4.

Subsidized suburban transit should be viewed strictly as a social safety net for those who lack alternatives, not as a green infrastructure project or a cure for regional traffic. When voters go to the polls in November 2026, they should firmly reject the new sales tax measure. Until regional planners dismantle these redundant bureaucracies and implement competitive contracting across a unified eastern and central Contra Costa County transit network, taxpayers are merely subsidizing an inefficient status quo.

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

 

Contra Costa Taxpayers Association calls Supervisors’ ballot measure “Another Money Grab”

By Leave a Comment

5 years after raising sales tax with Measure X

By Denise P. Kalm, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Little more than five years after raising our sales taxes, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors is going back to the well. On Tuesday, they voted unanimously to move forward with another sales tax increase, further increasing the costs of everyday essentials and making the County even more unaffordable for seniors and working families alike. (See related article)

Although Supervisors express pride over how 2020 Measure X sales tax revenue was spent, many of us question whether the money is going to core government functions. A recent oversight report listed these Measure X funded projects: Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Democracy Initiative, African American Holistic Wellness Center & Resource Hub and a Guaranteed Income Pilot. While many readers may agree with these projects, many taxpayers do not, and so they should be privately funded.

As the accompanying graph shows, County revenues have risen sharply in recent years with the passage of the Measure X and increased federal grants to County programs. When I quoted statistics from this graph, Supervisors questioned my accuracy, so let me assure them that the numbers come from the County’s own audited financial reports and budget.

Source: CoCoTax

A large share of the increase relates to Medi-Cal, a federal/state program that funds healthcare for low-income residents. Contra Costa County has aggressively involved itself in Medi-Cal, creating a pioneering Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan to provide care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

Between 2020 and 2025, the cost of Contra Costa County’s Medi-Cal Plan surged 157% from less than $900 million to almost $2.3 billion. A major contributor to this growth was the decision to extend Medi-Cal benefits to adult undocumented immigrants. According to state data, over 30,000 undocumented Contra Costa adults were receiving free healthcare through Medi-Cal last year.

Until recently, this was not a financial problem for the county because it was able to shift the cost onto the state and federal governments. But now this is becoming more difficult with Congressional Republicans, the Trump Administration and even the state government restricting reimbursements for undocumented immigrant coverage.

To continue growing this program, the Supervisors are now looking to residents to cover the tab by adding 0.625% to our sales taxes Countywide.

I realize that neighbors have a variety of views about immigration. Personally, I think the US should allow more of the talented people we need as well as a program to allow temporary, migrant workers to come here, which might go to support their request to immigrate here legally.

While I am for legal immigration, I do not agree that local communities should be on the hook to provide free medical care to anyone who comes here and completes an application. That policy is unsustainable, and unfair to the rest of us who pay a lot of money for healthcare. There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who would love to come to northern California and not have to worry about our high cost of living, including our high healthcare costs.

While I think we should welcome new neighbors, we should expect them to either shoulder the costs of living here or find friends, relatives, and charitable organizations that will help them do so.

Finally, the pro-tax side may portray your yes vote as a way to resist Trump and DC Republicans. But I urge you to hold two opinions simultaneously that may seem contradictory yet aren’t: you can hate the Administration’s hostile treatment of immigrants while also believing that local government should be fiscally responsible.  We have to manage our budgets carefully; those taking our tax money should be just as responsible.

If Supervisors are able to pass this sales tax in 2026 by a wide margin, there is every reason to think that they will come back for even more taxes in the years ahead with cities following them.  We already know that a transit sales tax increase of 0.5% is likely to be on the November ballot, another case of failing to manage BART and AC Transit money prudently.  So, I hope you’ll vote no in June, talk to your friends, and consider volunteering with our group to oppose this measure.

For more information about the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association visit www.cocotax.org.

Contra Costa Supervisors vote 5-0 to place 5-year 5/8-cent sales tax increase on June ballot

By 1 Comment

To pay for healthcare costs, offsetting cuts in federal budget

If passed, sales tax rate in 10 of the 19 cities in the county would increase by 0.625% to over 10%

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular, weekly meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decided to tell the taxpayers that they love our money by giving an early Valentine’s Day gift of a 5/8-cent sales tax increase measure on the June ballot. As a general tax, a simple majority of voters will have to give it their support in order to pass. If they do, it will generate an estimated $150 million per year for five years for a total of $750 million, intended to pay for healthcare for county residents impacted by federal budget cuts.

To adopt the sales tax ordinance a 4/5 vote of the Board was required but it passed unanimously. According to the proposed “2026 Retail Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance”, all of the proceeds from the tax will be placed in the County’s general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures of the County.

Screenshot of Board of Supervisors 5-0 vote on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, to adopt resolution placing sales tax increase on the June 2026 ballot.

Timeline to the Supes Vote

In the staff presentation for the proposed ordinance, the supervisors were provided with the timeline of events that led up to their vote: On November 18, 2025, the County Administrator’s Office offered a presentation on the State Budget and impacts of H.R.1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump which cuts healthcare expenditures. Then, on December 16th, the Health, Employment and Human Services departments provided an in-depth presentation on federal and state financial impacts. That was followed on January 20th by Board direction for seeking legislation allowing for an additional 0.625% general sales tax and development of a related taxing ordinance for a period of five years. Finally, during last Tuesday, February 3rd’s Board Retreat, presentations from Beacon Economics, the County Finance Director, California Welfare Director’s Association (CWDA) and the California Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems (CAPH) were made to the Board.

Projected Sales Tax Levels by City

If the measure passes, the amount of sales tax collected in each city in the county will increase by 0.625% or 62.5 cents for each $100 spent on taxable items. The presentation shows the sales tax increase would cause 15 of the 19 cities in the county to be above the local sales tax cap, including the tax cap changes from SB1349. That law, passed in 2020, allowed Contra Costa County to impose a sales tax of up to 0.5% for transportation projects, which is exempt from the state’s 2% cap. According to an April 2025 Issue Brief on Sales and Use Tax by the California State Association of Counties, “Today, the statewide sales tax rate on eligible taxable goods is 7.25%.”

According to the CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration, “The…7.25%…is made up of three parts:

  • 6.00% State
  • 1.00% Local Jurisdiction
  • 0.25% Local Transportation Fund

Some components of the state rate go to various local revenue funds.”

In addition, “Cities may impose a rate of up to one percent (1%).”

In California, the local sales tax cap is generally set at 3.5% above the 6% state sales tax rate for a total of 9.5%.

Following is the list of the new sales tax amounts by city if the county measure passes:

Source: Contra Costa County

The cities with the highest current sales tax rates in the state are Alameda and Albany at 10.75%. With the proposed Contra Costa sales tax increase, El Cerrito and Pinole would have the highest sales tax rate in both the county and state at 10.875%. Antioch would have the second highest in the county at 10.375%. That does not include other sales taxes that may be passed in 2026 including the regional transit tax slated for the November 2026 ballot, which would be an additional 0.5% Countywide. (See related article)

Gioia Offers Comments on Facebook, in TV Interview

In a post by John Gioia on his Facebook page, today, Feb. 11th, he shared a video of his comments during a KTVU FOX2 interview “about why a unanimous bi-partisan Board of Supervisors is placing a 5/8 cent temporary 5-year sales tax on this June’s ballot to protect our county’s hard working families from Trump’s devastating health, human services and food assistance cuts.”

“The average Contra Costan would pay about $10 per month to prevent over 50,000 people from losing healthcare and crowding emergency rooms that we all use and protecting emergency response times,” he added.

Resolution Details

The Resolution adopted by the Board includes the following clauses, “On July 4, 2025, the President signed H.R. 1, which enacted the deepest cuts in our country’s history to Medicaid and the federal food assistance programs;

“Medicaid and Medicare are the largest sources of revenue for the County’s public health and hospital/clinic system, which provide lifesaving and essential care to county residents, including Medi-Cal beneficiaries, Medicare recipients, and uninsured residents.

“H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and blocks the County from drawing down expected supplemental payments, producing escalating negative impacts on the County’s budget, while simultaneously making significant eligibility changes which will cause thousands of county residents to lose health coverage;

“Lack of health coverage often causes people to delay medical care resulting in sicker residents and will increase demand for emergency care sought by residents no longer able to access preventative healthcare after losing insurance coverage;

“More than 335,000 County residents rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, and the County is the primary health-care provider for this population;

“H.R. 1 also makes substantial reductions to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), limiting food assistance relied upon by approximately 110,000 county residents;

“As a result of the federal funding cuts and rising costs, the County projects annual revenue losses exceeding $300 million by 2029;

“The combination of decreased federal funding with the increased demands on the County’s healthcare and social services threatens ALL County services, from public safety to homeless services;

“An additional five-eighths of one cent countywide general transaction and use tax (sales tax) would generate an estimated $150 million annually for five years…”

Adopted Proposed Ballot Measure Language

The resolution also includes the proposed ballot measure language pending approval by the County Clerk’s Office:

“To help Contra Costa County address deep cuts in federal funding; support critical local services such as health care, supplemental food assistance, and other general county services; and reduce the risk of closures at Contra Costa’s regional hospital and health clinics, shall Contra Costa County adopt a five-eighths of one cent general sales tax for 5 years, providing an estimated $150,000,000 annually, not available to the federal government and subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?”

The primary election will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026.

For more details see Discussion Item D.2. on the Board Agenda for their meeting on Feb. 10, 2026, and watch the meeting video beginning at the 2:20:18-minute mark.

Guest Commentary: There are better alternatives to BART’s cutback plan

By 1 Comment

“They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.”

By Marc Joffe

BART has published a plan to balance its budget in the event voters reject the half-cent additional transit sales tax slated for the November 2026 ballot. BART’s plan appears to be well thought out but imposes far more inconvenience on riders than is necessary to close an expected $376 million deficit.

The most visible change is the station closures. Under its more extreme Phase 2 plan, BART would close 15 stations systemwide, including these five in Contra Costa: Orinda, North Concord, Pittsburg Bay Point, Pittsburg Center, and Antioch. Oakland Airport station would close, but SFO would stay open. Five other stations in Alameda County south of Oakland would be shuttered, as would four stations in San Mateo County south of Daly City. (See related article)

But most of these stations should not close. As BART itself recognizes, the savings from shuttering stations are not that large. And there is an alternative that would achieve a large portion of the expected savings, which is to operate the stations on an unstaffed basis. This idea may seem strange to BART riders expecting to see a station agent, but the fact is that many train stations in California operate without staff, including several on Capitol Corridor and Caltrain. Even Pittsburg Center on e-BART often operates without staff.

That said, both Pittsburg Center and North Concord have very low utilization (less than 1000 riders on an average weekday) and are reasonable candidates for closure. Indeed, BART should demolish the North Concord station and sell the parking lot to a developer for conversion to single family housing, a use consistent with the adjoining neighborhood.

Pittsburg Center, being in the median of Highway 4, does not offer a similar redevelopment option. It is one of three stations on the eBART extension connecting Antioch, Pittsburg and Bay Point using standard-gauge diesel multiple-unit trains which are incompatible with the rest of BART. The BART retrenchment plan envisions closing the whole eBART extension. A better choice would be to find a private operator to take it over.

That operator should be given discretion over fares and the option to convert the line to driverless technology in hopes of achieving a profit or at least minimizing the need for taxpayer subsidies.

As anyone who has visited an airport in the last few decades knows, driverless trains are nothing new. Outside the Bay Area, they are used for non-airport systems such as Honolulu’s Skyline and Vancouver’s Skytrain. Paris, Singapore, and other cities have successfully converted some of their lines to autonomous operation and Washington DC’s Metro is looking into doing the same thing.

Over the longer term, the entire BART system should be driverless: it could achieve large operational cost savings while maintaining or even increasing service frequency. Yet BART is not giving serious consideration to transitioning to driverless trains. When BART Director Matt Rinn spoke to CoCoTax in November I asked him about the idea and saw that he was unfamiliar with it. Staff should be discussing this option with the governing board.

They don’t do so because BART operates primarily for the benefit of staff and the labor unions that collect a portion of their salaries via dues. Riders are second, and taxpayers are a distant third.

Contra Costa taxpayers already pay plenty for transit, and, this November, it is time for us to tell BART and other agencies “no more.” They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.

One change that should be considered is a 10% salary reduction for all BART employees receiving over $100,000 per year. Based on my analysis of 2024 wage and overtime data, this option would save $54 million. Costly overtime hours should also be limited: in 2024 alone five BART employees collected over $200,000 in overtime a piece.

BART’s plan defers advanced payments for retiree health benefits. This saves $38 million, but only by pushing the cost onto future taxpayers when the fund holding the advance retiree health funding is exhausted. Instead, the BART retiree health benefit should be eliminated just as it was for Stockton employees when that city went bankrupt in 2012. With BART facing functional bankruptcy in 2026, a similar economy is needed. Retirees can get subsidized healthcare through Covered California or Medicare just as those of us who work in the private sector usually do.

Salary and benefit cuts in addition to the layoffs BART already has planned may seem harsh, but these are the types of reductions companies have to make when they are losing money and there is less demand for their product. Because BART now needs more of our money, we have the power to veto any cost-saving plan that fails to prioritize the needs of beleaguered taxpayers and riders. Let’s exercise that veto. In November, say NO to the transit sales tax.

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

BART Board to be presented with plans for station, segment closures by Jan., July 2027

By 1 Comment

Source: BART

If new funding not identified such as if Nov. 2026 ballot measure sales tax increase doesn’t pass

East Contra Costa, North Concord, Orinda Stations could be shuttered

By BART

At the annual BART Board Workshop on Thursday, February 12, BART staff will present Directors with detailed plans for an alternative service framework if a November 2026 ballot measure fails and no other operating revenue source is identified. 10 stations could be closed by January 2027 and three segments by July 2027.

During the workshop, staff will outline the risks and tradeoffs for service and non-service reductions. Because rail has high fixed costs and low marginal savings, it is impossible to close the projected FY27 $376M deficit with service cuts and fare increases alone.

BART staff evaluated multiple aspects of service including routes, stations, headways, peak, evening, and weekend service and hours of operation. The proposed framework outlines, for the very first time, specific details including which stations would need to be closed due to a lack of operating funds and the recommended phased approach to triggering further cuts. The plan retains as many riders as possible, while still cutting service to realize savings. System support services would need to be reduced by 40% as cost savings from cutting service would be largely offset by the resulting lost fare revenue.

Source: BART

Phase 1 – North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center Stations Would Close

The stations on the list for potential Phase 1 closure in January 2027 include the 10 lowest ridership stations: North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center, Oakland International Airport, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Castro Valley, San Bruno, South Hayward, South San Francisco and Warm Springs/South Fremont.

In addition, the proposed Phase 1 proposal includes Service Frequencies of a 63% reduction in train hours; Reduced base schedule: 3-line base schedule each with 2 trains/hour and 240% more transfers (Percentage of trips requiring a transfer increases from 7% to 22%); Test retaining peak service: Peak Green/Red/Yellow trains operate in peak hours/direction only; and No evening service: the lines would Close at 9 PM (7 days) and Open at 8 AM (Saturday and Sunday).

Source: BART

Phase 2 – Yellow Line Service Would End at Concord Station, Pittsburg/Bay Point & Antioch Stations Would Close

The Phase 2 – July 2027: Segment Closure Scenario, Contingent on Phase 1 implementation, would result in a 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles; Segment closures would stop service on most system segments opened after 1976: Yellow line service would end at Concord, shuttering the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations; Orange line service would end at Bay Fair,; Blue line service would be discontinued shuttering the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station; Most stations south of Daly City would be closed except for direct service to SFO would continue for revenue retention; Service continues to Milpitas and Berryessa due to terms of BART/VTA agreements.

Board Vote Scheduled for Feb. 26 Meeting

There will not be a Board vote at the workshop on February 12. After receiving feedback from Directors at the workshop, staff plans to return to the Board on Thursday, February 26, with a resolution to adopt a finalized alternative service framework that would be implemented if new funding is not secured.

You can read the full presentation here.

You can participate in the workshop. You may join in person (2150 Webster Street, Oakland, CA 94612) or via Zoom videoconferencing (https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89025424156).

Written comments may be addressed to the BART Board in advance via email to Board.Meeting@BART.gov, using “public comment” as the subject line, before 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th.

 

Connect Bay Area campaign raises nearly $3 million to support signature gathering for regional transit tax measure

By 1 Comment

Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Graphics source: Connect Bay Area

Businesses, labor unions, civic foundations join effort for 5-county Nov. 2026 ballot measure to prevent threatened catastrophic transit service cuts, promote reliable, safe public transit

Includes Contra Costa; would generate about $1 billion per year

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA — The Connect Bay Area Transit committee today announced that it has already raised nearly $3 million to support a region-wide effort to qualify Connect Bay Area, a voter-proposed regional transportation funding measure, for the November 2026 ballot. With strong early financial backing secured, the campaign will now begin signature gathering while continuing to fundraise to qualify and pass a five-county sales tax to save public transit.

About the Tax Measure

The measure if adopted would increase the sales tax in Contra Costa, Alameda San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties by a half cent and one cent in San Francisco County for 14 years. As previously reported, the measure would generate approximately $980 million annually across the five counties.

Revenue from the tax measure will benefit multiple transit agencies in the region including Tri Delta Transit, County Connection and WestCat, as well as AC Transit and BART which serve Contra Costa County residents.

Following is a county-by-county breakdown of the County Specific Dollars. It does not include money going to BART, Muni, AC Transit and Caltrain, or to regional improvements that aren’t designated by county, such as coordinated fare programs and accessibility improvements.

County Agencies:

  • Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (2.5%, $26.51M)
  • Alameda County Transportation Commission (1%, $10.26M)
  • San Mateo County Transit District (4.7%, $50M)
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (25.1%, $264.07M)

Small Operators:

  • Contra Costa County small operators (1.5%, $15.75M)
  • Alameda County small operators (0.5%, $5.25M)
  • SF Bay Ferry (0.7%, $7M)
  • Golden Gate Transit (0.1%, $1M)

Without new and sustainable operations funding, the Bay Area will face a true emergency:

  • BART: Could shut down two of its five lines, reducing service from 4,500 trains per week to just 500, with trains running only hourly and no weekend service.
  • AC Transit: Would reduce service by 37%, bringing operations down to just half of pre-pandemic levels.
  • Muni: Would face 50% cuts to all bus and Metro lines, including elimination of entire neighborhood routes and San Francisco’s iconic historic trolleys and cable cars.
  • Caltrain: Trains would run only once per hour, end service by 9 p.m. on weekdays, and eliminate all weekend service.

The Connect Bay Area measure will support the future of public transportation in the Bay Area:

  • Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA and AC Transit
  • Prevent catastrophic service cuts that could devastate the Bay Area
  • Keep traffic and emissions down, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress;
  • Support the Bay Area’s economy, ensuring that downtown recovery and regional mobility remain strong.

The Connect Bay Area Transit measure will include strong accountability provisions. This ensures new funding delivers real improvements, not just short-term fixes. Transit agencies must:

  • Independent financial review and cost-efficiency: Operators will undergo a third-party financial review and be required to improve financial efficiency and use public funds wisely
  • Better regional coordination to benefit riders: Operators will be required to comply with MTC’s Regional Network Management Policies to coordinate across systems and simplify fares and signage to create a more seamless experience for riders.
  • Oversight Committee: An oversight committee will ensure that the expenditure plan is adhered to and hold MTC and operators accountable to all provisions of SB63.

About the Campaign

The campaign’s initial fundraising success reflects broad alignment across business, labor, philanthropy, and community leaders that a reliable, safe, and efficient public transportation system is vital to the future of the Bay Area. Major early donors include Chris Larsen, Herzog Contracting Corporation, Genentech, HNTB Corporation, Meta, and SEIU 1021. For a full list of donors, see below.

“Public transportation connects everyone. We are proud of the broad coalition uniting to prevent catastrophic service cuts and to build an affordable, safe, and efficient public transportation system,” said Jeff Cretan, a spokesperson for the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee. “The commitments we are seeing from business, labor, and civic leaders shows that everyone is ready to get this measure across the finish line in November.”

Connect Bay Area is a five-county regional tax measure designed to prevent catastrophic transit service cuts and provide reliable operating funding for major transit systems and local bus operators throughout the region. The measure also funds improvements to transit systems, capital projects within counties, and targeted road improvements. The measure is critical to supporting the Bay Area’s economy, promoting an affordable region, reducing traffic congestion, and ensuring access to jobs, schools, and healthcare.

Early financial support for the campaign includes commitments from:

  • Chris Larsen
  • Herzog Contracting Corporation
  • Genentech
  • HNTB Corporation
  • Meta
  • SEIU 1021
  • Jacobs
  • Silicon Valley Community Foundation
  • ATU Local 1555
  • PG&E
  • San Francisco Foundation
  • WSP
  • Golden State Warriors
  • AFSCME Local 3993
  • Boston Properties
  • Visa
  • AFSCME Council 57
  • T.Y. Lin
  • GILLIG
  • HDR, Inc.
  • Fehr & Peers
  • AFSCME 3916
  • Arup North America
  • Olson Remcho

Additional major employers, labor organizations, and philanthropic partners have indicated commitments that are expected to be finalized as the campaign continues to build momentum.

With signature gathering starting, the Connect Bay Area campaign will focus on qualifying the measure for the ballot while continuing to expand its coalition across the region. The Campaign must secure over 186,000 signatures from the five counties by June 6, 2026 to qualify for the November ballot.

The campaign’s early momentum comes as Bay Area transit agencies face an unprecedented funding crisis. Without a sustainable solution, public transportation in the the region could see devastating impacts, including:

  • BART could eliminate 2 full lines, stop service at 9pm on weekdays, and eliminate all weekend service.
  • Muni could eliminate entire routes, make 50% cuts to major bus and metro lines, gut historic train and cable car service.
  • Caltrain could cut weekday service to once an hour, stop service at 9pm on weekdays, and eliminate all weekend service.
  • AC Transit could cut up to 37% of overall service.

Recent polling on the proposed Connect Bay Area measure shows a clear path to passage, with strong support across counties and voter demographics. A survey conducted by EMC Research for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission found that 59% of Bay Area voters would support a proposed regional sales tax measure for public transportation. The threshold for passage for a signature-gathering initiative is 50%+1.

For more information about Connect Bay Area, visit ConnectBayArea.com.

About the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee

The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is led by labor, business, and transit supporters, including the Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, SPUR, SAMCEDA, among others, as well as a broad advocacy council. The advocacy council includes more than 20 organizations including transit advocates, housing advocates, safe streets advocates, senior and disability advocates, and environmentalists. The Committee is focused on delivering a successful 2026 ballot measure that will strengthen public transportation to keep the Bay Area affordable for residents and support critical economic growth and climate resilience.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Toll increases at 7 Bay Area bridges beginning Jan. 1

By Leave a Comment

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Credit: Karl Nielsen. Photos source: BATA

$8.50 for all regular two-axle cars & trucks

First in series of 5 increases each year through 2030 – not voter approved

Plus, new policies for carpool lanes on bridge approaches

By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

With the new year starting next Thursday, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) reminds drivers that tolls at the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges will go up by 50 cents on Jan. 1, 2026. This will be the first in a series of five toll increases to be phased in each January through 2030, with the additional funds to be used only to pay for the maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges, and to service debt on BATA bond issues.

Approved by the BATA board in late 2024, not the voters, the new toll schedule includes a tiered rate structure  aimed at encouraging more customers to pay electronically with FasTrak® toll tags. Because payment with FasTrak carries lower administrative costs than payment through a license plate account or by returning payment with an invoice received in the mail, customers will pay a premium for using a pre-registered license plate account or for invoiced tolling. To give customers ample time to sign up for FasTrak, BATA last year voted to delay the start of the tiered pricing structure until 2027.

Tolls for all regular two-axle cars and trucks will increase to $8.50 from the current $8 on Jan. 1, 2026. Tolls for customers who pay with FasTrak tags will then rise to $9 in 2027; to $9.50 in 2028; to $10 in 2029; and then to $10.50 in 2030. Tolls for customers who use a pre-registered license plate account will climb to $9.25 in 2027; to $9.75 in 2028; to $10.25 in 2029 and to $10.75 in 2030. Invoiced tolls will go to $10 in 2027; $10.50 in 2028; $11 in 2029; and $11.50 in 2030.

Tolls for large freight trucks and other vehicle/trailer combinations with three or more axles will rise by 50 cents per axle each year from 2026 through 2030.

History of Bay Area Bridge Tolls

Tolls include the $5 of voter approved toll increases on the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges. They include:

  • The $1 uniform base toll on the bridges from Regional Measure 1 approved by voters in 1988, except for tolls at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, which were already set at $1, and unchanged by passage of RM1.
  • Voters also approved Regional Measure 2 in 2004 which raised the toll price on the bridges by another $1.
  • The $3 from Regional Measure 3 approved by voters in June 2018 which raised tolls in three $1 increments that went into effect on January 1, 2019, January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2025.

Updated HOV Policies

BATA last year also set a Jan. 1, 2026, start date for updated policies about the use of high-occupancy vehicles on approaches to the Bay Area’s state-owned toll bridges. These include a uniform three-person occupancy requirement for half-price tolls during weekday commute periods at all seven bridges. Carpool vehicles approaching the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge must use a dedicated carpool lane, but can use either a standard FasTrak tag or a FasTrak Flex tag set to the ‘3+” position to receive the 50 percent discount available weekdays from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Carpoolers at the six other state-owned bridges must use a dedicated carpool lane and pay their tolls with a FasTrak Flex toll tag set to the ‘3+’ position to receive the peak-period discount.

The new policies also will allow vehicles with two occupants and a switchable FasTrak Flex toll tag set to the ‘2’ position to use the carpool lanes on the approaches to the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. These two-occupant vehicles will not receive the 50 percent carpool discount but will be able to use the carpool lanes to save time traveling through the toll plazas. Use of the carpool lanes on approaches to the Bay Bridge still will require at least three occupants.

The new carpool policies are designed to improve safety on the toll bridge approaches by minimizing ‘weaving’ between lanes and to increase person-throughput by prioritizing access for buses and carpools. The policy change will optimize lane configurations as now-obsolete toll booths are removed as part of the coming transition to open-road tolling. The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge will be the first of the state-owned bridges to convert to open-road tolling. Crews are expected to begin work later this month on the construction and demolition projects at the Richmond end of the bridge needed to institute open-road tolling. Completion is scheduled sometime in the new year.

BATA, which is directed by the same policy board as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), administers toll revenues from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges. Toll revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge are administered by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, which joined with BATA to operate a single regional FasTrak customer service center in San Francisco. MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

The 21 BATA board members aren’t directly elected by the voters but are appointed to represent the nine Bay Area counties and cities in each county, the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, plus, various agencies. Contra Costa County’s representatives are Chair Sue Noack, Mayor of Pleasant Hill, representing Cities of Contra Costa County, who was appointed in February 2023 (contact: 415-602-9929 or snoack@pleasanthillca.org) and District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen representing the County, who was appointed January 2025 (contact 925-655-2300 or candace.andersen@bos.cccounty.us).

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

CHP distributes over $35 million to fight impaired driving

By 1 Comment

Photo: CHP

Antioch, Danville, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Ramon PD’s, Contra Costa Sheriff’s Dep’t among 148 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program recipients

CCC Sheriff Forensic Services Division will use funds for toxicology crime lab

By Tami Grimes, CHP Public Information Officer

SACRAMENTO – The California Highway Patrol (CHP) today announced more than $35 million in grant funding to 148 California law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories, local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to help address the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

“As the legal cannabis market continues to grow, so do the state’s efforts to ensure Californians are recreating responsibly. By supporting the organizations that enforce and amplify our laws on the ground, we can keep everyone safer,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.

The grants from Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, assigned the CHP the responsibility of administering grants for education, prevention and enforcement programs aimed at helping communities tackle impaired driving. Additionally, funds are available for crime laboratories that conduct forensic toxicology testing. The funding for these grants comes from a tax on the sale of cannabis and cannabis products in California.

“This funding represents a major step forward in our ongoing mission to save lives and prevent impaired driving,” said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee. “With over $35 million going to nearly 150 public safety partners across the state, we’re expanding our reach like never before. These resources will help those on the frontlines keep California’s roads safer for everyone.”

Source: CHP

These funds will go towards a variety of activities. One hundred twenty-six recipients of law enforcement grants will use the funding to combat impaired driving in their communities, including Antioch, Danville, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Richmond and San Ramon Police Departments. The funds will also support drug recognition evaluator training to improve the identification of drug-impaired drivers, as well as public outreach campaigns, including educational presentations and community events.

Eleven recipients of education grants will use the funds to inform local communities about impaired driving laws while highlighting the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Source: CHP

Seven recipients of two-year toxicology crime laboratory grants, including the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department Forensic Services Division, will use the funds to eliminate backlogs in analyzing forensic science evidence and to purchase or upgrade laboratory equipment to enhance testing capabilities.

Four recipients of two-year medical examiner’s and coroner’s office grants will use the funds to improve and advance data collection in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

With the passage of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), California voters mandated the state set aside funding for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to award grants to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations, as described in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B).

The Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program marks an important step toward reducing impaired driving crashes, increasing public awareness surrounding the dangers of impaired driving, and making California’s roadways a safer place to travel.

The application process for future grant funding is expected to reopen in early 2026. More information is available on the CHP website at CHP’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program.

The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Contra Costa Assessor’s report shows 1,341 more parcels, $12 billion increase in property values

By Leave a Comment

In annual Assessment Roll

By Allen D. Payton

In a letter to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, county Assessor Gus Kramer informed them of this fiscal year’s Assessment Roll for the purpose of collecting property taxes and the net value has increased by almost $12 billion over last year.

The report shows San Pablo and Danville had the greatest increase while Concord and Pittsburg had the least, as well as an increase of 1,342 parcels due new development in the county.

Source: Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office

Kramer’s letter reads:

“Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors,

I am pleased to report the completion and official delivery of the 2025–2026 Contra Costa County Assessment Roll to the County Auditor-Controller, as required by law.

This year’s assessment roll reflects a total net assessed value of $290.66 billion, an increase of $11.67 billion—or 4.18%—over the previous year. This represents the highest total assessed value in the County’s history. Cities with the highest percentage increases in assessed value include San Pablo with 5.81%, and Danville with 5.28%. Cities with the most modest growth include Concord at 3.10%, and Pittsburg at 2.96%.

The total number of assessed parcels now stands at 382,022, an increase of 1,341 parcels compared to the previous year. This growth reflects ongoing development and investment throughout Contra Costa County.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the Assessor’s Office for their professionalism, dedication, and tireless efforts in preparing an accurate and timely assessment roll for the 2025–2026 fiscal year.

Sincerely,

Gus S. Kramer

Assessor”

The duties of the County Assessor’s Office include:

  • Discovering and assessing all property within the County
  • Producing and delivering an assessment roll by July 1 of each year
  • Valuing all real property
  • Auditing all entities doing business in the County and valuing all taxable personal property
  • Establishing and maintaining a set of 11,000 maps for assessment purposes, delineating every parcel of land in the County
  • Providing a public information service to assist taxpayers with questions about property ownership and assessment

To review your property’s value visit Review Your Value and for more information call the office at (925) 313-7400.