|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A bill proposing a temporary toll increase for Bay Area bridges to fund public transportation has been shelved, its authoring legislators said Monday, Aug. 21.
State Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, said in a joint statement that State Bill 532 has taken a pause. They will instead focus their efforts on developing strategies for more transit funding for the next legislative session.
If passed the bill would have raised tolls by $1.50 on seven Bay Area bridges for five years, starting in 2024. The estimated $180 million in revenue would have been used to sustain funding for Bay Area transit agencies as federal emergency resources dry up post-COVID-19 lockdowns.
The bill was intended to give agencies enough time to continue services until they find a stable source of funding, which could potentially come in the form of a regional ballot measure in the future.
“While there was not enough time to reach a consensus on how to solve this looming problem, we made substantial progress on a solution,” Wiener said. “I will continue to make transit operations funding a major priority, and I look forward to continuing those discussions into the fall.”
The pause comes after multiple California representatives expressed concerns about the legislation unfairly impacting low-income residents and that it would not provide sustainable solutions for public transportation agencies in the long-term.
The Palo Alto City Council discussed SB 532 at its Aug. 14 meeting. Council members considered a resolution drafted by city staff, which — while not directly opposing SB 532 — certainly threw some shade at it. SB 532 “would bypass the voters to levy a bridge toll increase on the commuters who can least afford it,” it stated.
Mayor Lydia Kou, who is running for the state Assembly, launched a petition drive opposing the bill.
“I don’t believe that nickel and diming people who are just trying to travel or get to work is the right way to ‘bail out’ public transportation agencies,” Kou’s petition stated.
The full City Council opted not to take a stance on the bill, voting unanimously to simply “monitor” the bill.
Wiener and Wilson said that, in response to the opposition, they will collaborate with Bay Area legislators in a working group to determine which transit funding proposals to pursue in the next legislative session. Potential proposals include state budget allocations, temporary toll increases and the regional transit funding measure, among other ideas.
“Increasing tolls can be a significant burden to Bay Area commuters who are already dealing with high cost of living, inflation and other expenses. From an equity perspective, tolls can have substantial repercussions especially for those where public transit is not a viable option.” Wilson said.
“We need to ensure there is accountability and verifiable data collection so that our proposed solutions are evidence-based and defensible to those being asked to bear the burden of this investment. I look forward to facilitating these discussions along with Senator Wiener in the Fall with interested members of the Bay Area Caucus,” she added.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said in a statement on social media that it found the pause “very disappointing” and a “blow” to their efforts to preserve Muni service.
“But we’re going to keep fighting for the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on Muni every single day,” agency officials stated. “We can’t afford to lose transit.”
Palo Alto Online Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner contributed to this report.
If you believe that $1.50 is temporary, well, I’ve got 7 bridges to sell you!
The taxes in California are so much higher than in other states and then you read this and realize there’s no serious effort to be more fiscally responsible. We have to figure out what’s essential and make deep cuts even if a vocal minority doesn’t like it.
We pay up to 12.3% of our income in CA and if you live next door in AZ it’s a flat tax of 2.5% and in TX it’s zero. I can only imagine where we’d be if the voters didn’t pass Proposition 13 in 1978.
Apples to Lemons. The effective CA income tax is 0 percent on lower incomes. AZ does not tax higher incomes at a higher rate (progressive income tax, like the feds) but CA does.
I do not support taxing more – to support BART which will not cut its workforce when it is moving many less people than 5 years ago. Public Union Labor must also be productive Labor, not just feather-bedders (and cash sources for BART director elections.)