After a successful signature-gathering campaign by Connect Bay Area, the Regional Transit Measure (https://connectbayarea.com/) (RTM) will appear on the November ballots for many Bay Area voters, and Greenbelt Alliance is excited to endorse a YES vote on RTM.

If the Regional Transit Measure passes, the roughly $1 billion in revenue per year will support public transit agencies’ improvements to safety, cleanliness, convenience, seamless integration of transit services, and specific capital projects. The new revenue will be sourced from a 1% sales tax in San Francisco County and a 0.5% sales tax in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties.

The measure aims to prevent catastrophic funding cuts that could impact regional public transit as soon as 2027. These major impacts will particularly hurt BART, Muni, AC Transit, and Caltrain, but will have many downstream consequences for our entire region. If we don’t approve it, the Bay Area will lose its transit backbone, making our weekly commutes longer, causing a dramatic increase in pollution, and leaving us with less time to be with our friends and family.

RTM supports a resilient and sustainable future where our communities are able to use public transit with ease, and we can protect our environment from further greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Please join Greenbelt Alliance, alongside organizations such as 350 Bay Area, SPUR, and Public Advocates, in endorsing the Regional Transit Measure! Vote YES on RTM in November to save the Bay Area’s public transit and fight against climate change.

Additionally, learn more about Proposition H in San Francisco (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-proposition-h-sf/) to further strengthen the Muni transit system in San Francisco.

Why It Matters

The Bay Area is facing its biggest threat to public transportation in decades. With a looming fiscal cliff, major transit agencies—including BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit—may soon have to make difficult decisions to close stations, reduce frequencies, and shorten hours of operation.

To avert this looming crisis, a coalition of advocates came together to launch the Connect Bay Area (https://connectbayarea.com) campaign. Earlier in May, the campaign announced it collected more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot—crushing the minimal threshold of 186,000 required signatures.

Greenbelt Alliance was proud to be part of this grassroots coalition and endorse the Connect Bay Area Campaign. (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/connect-bay-area-transit/)

How We Got Here

"The Bay Area's public transit is a core pillar of our region's ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future. Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution."

Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director

Funding for transit agencies in the Bay Area relies heavily on fares and local revenue sources, so when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and ridership plunged, a substantial amount of that funding disappeared. For a while, agencies were able to stay afloat due to the federal relief stimulus, but that has quickly dried up, and California has not stepped in to address those deficits. Without yearly State funding and with ridership only slowly recovering to pre-pandemic levels, agencies are not seeing the revenue needed to continue operating at full capacity.

To put this into perspective, here is what will happen in 2027 if we do not pass the transit measure:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Red and Green lines will be phased down to just peak hours in January 2027. The Grey line will close at this time, too. The blue line will close in July 2027.
15 stations with the lowest ridership will close, including Millbrae and Warm Springs, by July 2027.
70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles by July 2027.
30% fare increase in January 2027, and a 50% increase in July 2027.
The agency will face a $355-$385 million budget deficit (30% of the operating budget)
Without a funding pathway by mid-2028, BART may have to stop all operations. See more details here (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/%5BBART%20Board%20Workshop%2002-12-2026%5D%20Presentations.pdf).

SFMTA Muni

There will be a 50% cut of Muni services
There will be an elimination of fare discounts and pass programs for youth and seniors
The agency will face a $322-$398 million budget deficit (25% of the operating budget)

AC Transit

There will be a nearly 40% cut to services
The agency will face a $51-$72 million budget deficit (10% of the operating budget)

Caltrain

The agency will run 1 train per hour and cut all weekend service
The agency will face a $65-$76 million budget deficit (42% of the operating budget)

These monumental disruptions to operations are direct consequences of the fiscal cliff. However, it does not account for the myriad ramifications down the road for managing traffic, tackling climate change, meeting our housing needs, and ensuring an affordable California for all.

“Fuming” with Greenhouse Gases

With 41% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/sustainabletransportation) coming from the transportation sector, losing major parts of our public transit system will allow for even more cars on the road and weaken our ability to fight the climate crisis. Without BART, drivers can expect their commute to extend by 12 more hours per week and see traffic across the Bay Bridge surging by 73%. This means less time with family and friends doing the things we love.

In the long term, this may lead to worsening climate hazards, including droughts, flooding, and wildfires. More cars will also be a direct threat to our health and well-being, causing more air pollution (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4243514/#S24), compromising air quality, and increasing respiratory-related illnesses. By maintaining our public transit system, we can reduce GHG emissions (https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2017/12/12-5-17item15transportationsectorclimateactionstrategy.pdf) and avoid these catastrophic changes to our communities.

Communities Connected to Transit

Three words encapsulate our housing abundance strategy: transit-oriented development (TOD). In the last two decades, many urbanists have turned their attention to creating walkable, affordable, and resilient communities that are well-connected to the places where people work, study, and play. A cornerstone of this vision is built on the idea that we should promote more homes near our public transit corridors.

BART TOD projects like MacArthur Station provide residents access to the vibrant Temescal neighborhood, while allowing easy access to commute to downtown Oakland or San Francisco. Even new project proposals like the Caltrain-adjacent Hillsdale Reimagined (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/hillsdale-endorsement/) in San Mateo demonstrate the durability of TOD in renovating underutilized buildings and turning them into lively community spaces.

That is why Greenbelt Alliance co-sponsored Senate Bill 79 (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/sb79-transit-housing-bill/) in the California legislature, which makes it easier and faster to build homes near public transit. While SB 79 is now law, the risks of public transit’s fiscal cliff diminish the law’s application by making fewer sites viable for TOD upzoning. Other proposed TOD projects funded by transit agencies will likely be reevaluated, too. This could all delay much-needed affordable housing in the Bay Area and worsen the housing crisis.

Saving public transit goes far beyond just our means of commuting. A healthy public transit system reduces traffic, protects us from pollution, reduces GHG emissions, creates resilient neighborhoods, and supports new housing.

This November, vote YES on the Regional Transit Measure.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-for-the-regional-transit-measure-rtm/)

Across the Bay Area and California, voters have turned to citizen initiatives to fund some of our most critical needs.

Proposition 43 (https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-43-tax-threshold/) would make it much more difficult for Bay Area communities to fund the things we need to thrive: measures to build affordable housing, to protect our open spaces, and to fund the transit systems that keep our region moving, by raising the threshold for citizen-initiated local special tax measures from a simple majority to two-thirds. Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Prop 43. Learn more about the campaign here (https://www.noprop43ca.com/).

Under Prop 43, passing these measures would require a whopping 66.67% supermajority of the vote instead of the regular 50% + 1. A minority of voters could block investments that most of their neighbors support, including efforts to conserve open space, protect farmland, and expand our public transit systems, among others.

Recent examples show the importance of keeping special tax measures accessible. Consider Measure D in Santa Clara County (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/yes-santa-clara-open-space-measure/), for example, which funds the protection and restoration of waterways and open spaces. Or, the regional transit measure, Connect Bay Area (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/connect-bay-area-transit/), or Measure H in San Francisco, which funds MUNI, and the recently approved Sonoma-Marin transit measure. In each case, people took funding for the places and services they rely on directly to the ballot.

California already has significant voter protections around local taxes. We should not make it even harder for communities to fund the parks, trails, and open spaces they value or the affordable housing, transit systems, and safer streets they need. If a majority of voters support a locally proposed measure, a minority should not be able to veto it.

Local voters should have the power to decide how to invest in their communities. Greenbelt Alliance urges voters in California to say No on Prop 43.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-no-proposition-43/)

For advocates working at the intersection of environmental protection and climate-smart growth, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/california-environmental-quality-act/) has long been a source of both pride and frustration. While it has been a critical tool to protect our natural and working lands, its procedural delays have often been used to stall projects essential to a low-carbon future: dense infill (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/infill-development/) housing and transit-oriented development (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/transit-oriented-development/) in our existing communities.

In July 2025, however, at the urging of Governor Newsom, the California legislature passed some of the most impactful changes to CEQA (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-reform-explainer/) since its inception. Taken together, the two bills (AB 130 and SB 131) provide robust statutory CEQA exemptions for infill housing and housing element rezonings, require the state to map infill areas where exemptions would apply, and narrow the scope of the administrative record, helping to curtail anti-housing litigation.

Read my Op-Ed on the East Bay Times on why Prop 45 is a ruse handing shortcuts to polluters disguised as relief. (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2026/09/12/opinion-vote-no-prop-45-would-take-away-our-best-defense-against-corporate-polluters/amp/)

Despite these monumental changes that address the barriers to critical infill development, California’s business lobby and sprawl developers were left unsatisfied. Now, they are proposing a ballot initiative that would make far more radical changes to the law. After gathering enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, this is now called Proposition 45.

While the rhetoric of the measure (initially called Building an Affordable California Act, or BACA (https://advocacy.calchamber.com/2025/12/17/calchambers-ceqa-reform-boosting-californias-economy-and-state-budget/)) seems to be aligned with urbanist goals and those of the broader abundance and affordability movements, the actual policy details and mechanics of the initiative—and the progress we’ve already achieved in the legislature (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/2025-legislative-priorities/) last year—suggest that the costs it brings far outweigh any potential benefits.

Below, we outline seven reasons why the measure should be rejected (click to read more):

1. Major Reforms Have Already Been Enacted

For years, a primary objective for California’s urbanists was to stop the abuse of environmental law against projects that genuinely help the environment: dense, transit-oriented housing.
In a landmark shift for the state, that goal has largely been realized. Following years of advocacy by urbanists, the legislature passed a clean statutory CEQA exemption for infill housing. AB 130, which Greenbelt Alliance was proud to support (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-reform-ca/), is already being utilized across California, allowing builders to move forward with climate-friendly housing in high-opportunity areas like Palo Alto or Beverly Hills without the threat of being endlessly delayed by the environmental review process. While there is room for technical refinements, the fundamental issue at hand—the misuse of environmental laws to delay environmentally-friendly housing projects—has largely been addressed.

2. Everything is “Essential”

As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s certainly true for the BACA initiative. While modest on the surface, BACA creates a completely new set of rules for what it calls “essential” projects. So what, exactly, is an “essential project”?

The list is incredibly broad. Under Article 2, Section 21013, “essential projects” include housing, water, transportation, clean energy, transmission, broadband, and healthcare infrastructure. In practice, this definition encompasses a wide range of large-scale developments. For example, new freeways and existing freeway expansions would qualify as “essential transportation” projects; large greenfield sprawl developments would be treated as “essential” housing projects; and new dams and reservoirs would qualify as “essential” water projects. The definition even includes all “related and ancillary infrastructure,” meaning that highway interchanges, utility extensions, and water pipelines that enable sprawl developments also receive streamlined approval. All of these are enormous projects in terms of size and scale, with major potential environmental impacts. Yet, just like an apartment building in an urban area, under BACA, they would qualify for a significantly truncated review process.

In effect, this new CEQA process mirrors the fundamental flaw of its predecessor. While the old system failed to exempt low or no-impact projects from excessive review, the new one errs in the opposite direction, fast-tracking high-risk developments with significant potential for harm.

3. All Timelines Are Not Created Equal

The BACA initiative imposes strict timelines for this new class of projects that it deems “essential”: the environmental review process can take no more than one year. On the surface, a one-year limit on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seems reasonable. And for certain projects, like an apartment building on a parking lot in downtown San Francisco, or a townhome development in an LA suburb, it would be.

However, the measure’s definition of “essential” includes highways, dams, large-scale subdivisions, and other major projects. The environmental review required for projects at this scale cannot be done in a single year. Surveying hundreds if not thousands (or even tens of thousands) of acres of undisturbed and undeveloped land for species nesting patterns and habitat, water pollution impacts, and other environmental concerns physically cannot be accomplished within the timeframe laid out in the initiative. By forcing these projects into such a condensed timeline, we will be creating a system that overlooks genuine environmental harm in favor of speed.

For projects with unambiguous environmental benefits, such as housing developments within already urbanized areas, such speed makes sense. Many of the project types considered by this measure do not have the same clear, unambiguous benefits.

4. Restrictive Alternatives

One of CEQA’s most critical tools for preventing environmental harm is its alternative analysis provision, which allows for the identification of better project locations and designs. Currently, CEQA requires agencies to analyze a “reasonable range of alternatives” that could reduce environmental impacts, including different sites, reduced intensity options, and designs that avoid sensitive resources. This is how agencies can say, “this housing should be built downtown on a parking lot instead of on farmland,” or “this highway expansion has an alternative transit solution.”

BACA restricts this to just three options: the proposed project, one alternative designed by the applicant themselves (which doesn’t even need to be at a different location), and “no project.” The applicant’s alternative can be a slightly modified version of their original proposal on the same site. This eliminates the core mechanism for steering projects away from environmentally sensitive locations toward more appropriate sites, exactly the tool needed to prevent sprawl, protect open space, and ensure development happens in the right places.

5. The Evidentiary Standard

Maybe the most radical change incorporated in the ballot measure is to CEQA’s standard of review. Right now, CEQA allows a lead agency (generally a city or county) to use its own discretion to explore project alternatives and negotiate environmental mitigations. BACA proposes to eliminate this by requiring that environmental impacts only be found significant if they violate objective, quantifiable standards already in existing law when the project was proposed, which doesn’t sound inherently unreasonable!

However, the measure doesn’t actually require jurisdictions to adopt such standards; instead, it exploits their absence. If numerical thresholds don’t already exist for resources like oak woodlands, groundwater, or wildlife corridors, impacts to them essentially can’t be found significant regardless of severity. A genuine objective standards approach would mandate jurisdictions adopt protective thresholds and update them as science improves. This measure rewards weak standards, freezes them at application date, and prevents improvements based on new knowledge.

6. Ballot Box Permanence

Finally, one of the greatest flaws of the measure is its rigidity. Should it pass, BACA would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to amend.

California has a long, storied history with ballot box governance, where initiatives become impossible to adjust as new problems arise. The 2/3rds requirement virtually guarantees the law could never be changed, regardless of what issues may arise. An unchangeable measure, with foreseeable negative impacts for the state, may have lasting consequences for generations.

Some of the project types included in this measure, such as clean energy or transmission infrastructure, may benefit from the types of streamlining being considered if careful, targeted changes were made. Rather than a broad, clunky initiative that will be extremely difficult to change, we should advocate for those reforms through the legislative cleanup process already underway.

7. The Costs Are Just Too High

California faces converging affordability crises: insurers fleeing the state, utility rates climbing, and municipal budgets straining under unsustainable costs. All of these issues stem from the same source: decades of sprawling outward, often into fire-prone areas, leaving us with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain and risks we cannot afford to insure.

BACA will accelerate these failures by trading short-term speed for permanent costs. By gutting CEQA’s alternatives analysis—the primary tool for steering projects away from costly, high-risk locations—this limits agencies to the developer’s preferred site, one alternative the developer designs themselves, and “no project.” It freezes environmental standards at the date of application, rewarding jurisdictions with weak protections. And it requires agencies to approve permits within strict timelines regardless of fiscal consequences, because most cities lack the quantitative standards BACA requires to find fiscal impacts “significant.”

The result: even if we build some things faster today, we’ll be paying the tab forever. Even more homes in fire zones will continue to destabilize our insurance markets. More infrastructure extensions will push up our utility rates. More sprawling subdivisions that generate less revenue than they cost to maintain will ensure even higher taxes. BACA promises affordability through speed but delivers the opposite: cheaper to build, but financially ruinous to sustain.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and when the federal government is doing all it can to roll back our environmental protections, the last thing we need is to double down on the failed policies we have tried for decades and know do not work.

Proposition 45 will hurt the environment and your wallet.

Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Proposition 45 and urges voters to vote NO on 45 this November.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-baca-initiative/)

Greenbelt Alliance says NO to Measure G in San Francisco to save the Sunset Dunes Park (https://www.savesunsetdunes.org/) and keep the 2-mile stretch of the Upper Great Highway along Ocean Beach closed to cars and open for people every day. Measure G proposes to reopen the road on weekdays. The campaign says the road would remain part of the car-free park on weekends.

In 2024, we endorsed Proposition K (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/yes-proposition-k-san-francisco/) to close this segment of the highway to first establish this stretch of Ocean Beach as a park open to the public. Prop K was successful and won on the ballots, and since then has seen a huge turnout of people, as the city’s 3rd most visited park.

According to KQED (https://www.kqed.org/news/12099969/street-safety-advocates-accuse-yes-on-g-campaign-of-pushing-bad-data), “the majority of voters who live closest to the Great Highway opposed its closure in 2024, and its status remains at the center of west side politics, leading to the recall of District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio in 2025 and a now-dismissed lawsuit challenging Proposition K.” Measure G campaign claims that reopening this stretch of the road would lead to better road safety; however, this claim is being denied by pedestrian-safety advocates, including partners like SPUR, who say the campaign’s “new branding misappropriates street-safety imagery and falsely suggests that the proposition would increase neighborhood safety.”

Why It Matters

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020, a portion of the Upper Great Highway along Ocean Beach closed to cars and welcomed residents to enjoy the highway as a recreational and social public space. But this arrangement was set to expire in 2025, and Proposition K established a permanent closure and oceanside park

Climate change is currently causing parts of Ocean Beach to erode and making the highway unreliable and threatening its longevity and safety. Before the permanent closure, the highway was already closed up to 65 days per year due to sand removal, costing the City nearly $2 million annually.

Voters have just recently weighed in on the same question, and they said YES to open spaces for public recreation. We support Sunset Dunes again in 2026 and urge voters to vote No on Measure G in San Francisco.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-no-measure-g-san-francisco/)

For healthier and well-connected communities, Greenbelt Alliance encourages voters in San Francisco to say YES to Proposition H to secure funds for Muni and keep light rail, buses, and cable cars running.

Proposition H, or Stronger Muni for All (https://www.strongermuniforall.com/), is focused on providing financial support for public transit in San Francisco and preventing a once-in-a-generation funding crisis. The proposition will address Muni’s major annual deficit of over $300 million and ensure that the agency is safe, reliable, and affordable. If it passes, Prop H would establish a fair tiered parcel tax that charges 95% of single-family residences a flat $129 annual fee. Larger homes would pay progressively more, and the largest commercial properties would pay up to $400,000 annually. This ensures that average San Franciscans are not burdened by higher taxes while the biggest properties are paying the most.

Along with organizations such as Transform, SF Transit Riders, and the Sierra Club, we endorse Prop H because a healthy, resilient, interconnected, and sustainable future necessitates a strong public transit system.

This ballot measure is complementary to the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-for-the-regional-transit-measure-rtm/)‘s goals and will support the region by significantly reducing traffic congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting downtown and citywide economic recovery. Vote YES to save Muni and protect our environment.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-proposition-h-sf/)

After a successful signature-gathering campaign by Connect Bay Area, the Regional Transit Measure (https://connectbayarea.com/) (RTM) will appear on the November ballots for many Bay Area voters, and Greenbelt Alliance is excited to endorse a YES vote on RTM.

If the Regional Transit Measure passes, the roughly $1 billion in revenue per year will support public transit agencies’ improvements to safety, cleanliness, convenience, seamless integration of transit services, and specific capital projects. The new revenue will be sourced from a 1% sales tax in San Francisco County and a 0.5% sales tax in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties.

The measure aims to prevent catastrophic funding cuts that could impact regional public transit as soon as 2027. These major impacts will particularly hurt BART, Muni, AC Transit, and Caltrain, but will have many downstream consequences for our entire region. If we don’t approve it, the Bay Area will lose its transit backbone, making our weekly commutes longer, causing a dramatic increase in pollution, and leaving us with less time to be with our friends and family.

RTM supports a resilient and sustainable future where our communities are able to use public transit with ease, and we can protect our environment from further greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Please join Greenbelt Alliance, alongside organizations such as 350 Bay Area, SPUR, and Public Advocates, in endorsing the Regional Transit Measure! Vote YES on RTM in November to save the Bay Area’s public transit and fight against climate change.

Additionally, learn more about Proposition H in San Francisco (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-proposition-h-sf/) to further strengthen the Muni transit system in San Francisco.

Why It Matters

The Bay Area is facing its biggest threat to public transportation in decades. With a looming fiscal cliff, major transit agencies—including BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit—may soon have to make difficult decisions to close stations, reduce frequencies, and shorten hours of operation.

To avert this looming crisis, a coalition of advocates came together to launch the Connect Bay Area (https://connectbayarea.com) campaign. Earlier in May, the campaign announced it collected more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot—crushing the minimal threshold of 186,000 required signatures.

Greenbelt Alliance was proud to be part of this grassroots coalition and endorse the Connect Bay Area Campaign. (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/connect-bay-area-transit/)

How We Got Here

"The Bay Area's public transit is a core pillar of our region's ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future. Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution."

Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director

Funding for transit agencies in the Bay Area relies heavily on fares and local revenue sources, so when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and ridership plunged, a substantial amount of that funding disappeared. For a while, agencies were able to stay afloat due to the federal relief stimulus, but that has quickly dried up, and California has not stepped in to address those deficits. Without yearly State funding and with ridership only slowly recovering to pre-pandemic levels, agencies are not seeing the revenue needed to continue operating at full capacity.

To put this into perspective, here is what will happen in 2027 if we do not pass the transit measure:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Red and Green lines will be phased down to just peak hours in January 2027. The Grey line will close at this time, too. The blue line will close in July 2027.
15 stations with the lowest ridership will close, including Millbrae and Warm Springs, by July 2027.
70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles by July 2027.
30% fare increase in January 2027, and a 50% increase in July 2027.
The agency will face a $355-$385 million budget deficit (30% of the operating budget)
Without a funding pathway by mid-2028, BART may have to stop all operations. See more details here (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/%5BBART%20Board%20Workshop%2002-12-2026%5D%20Presentations.pdf).

SFMTA Muni

There will be a 50% cut of Muni services
There will be an elimination of fare discounts and pass programs for youth and seniors
The agency will face a $322-$398 million budget deficit (25% of the operating budget)

AC Transit

There will be a nearly 40% cut to services
The agency will face a $51-$72 million budget deficit (10% of the operating budget)

Caltrain

The agency will run 1 train per hour and cut all weekend service
The agency will face a $65-$76 million budget deficit (42% of the operating budget)

These monumental disruptions to operations are direct consequences of the fiscal cliff. However, it does not account for the myriad ramifications down the road for managing traffic, tackling climate change, meeting our housing needs, and ensuring an affordable California for all.

“Fuming” with Greenhouse Gases

With 41% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/sustainabletransportation) coming from the transportation sector, losing major parts of our public transit system will allow for even more cars on the road and weaken our ability to fight the climate crisis. Without BART, drivers can expect their commute to extend by 12 more hours per week and see traffic across the Bay Bridge surging by 73%. This means less time with family and friends doing the things we love.

In the long term, this may lead to worsening climate hazards, including droughts, flooding, and wildfires. More cars will also be a direct threat to our health and well-being, causing more air pollution (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4243514/#S24), compromising air quality, and increasing respiratory-related illnesses. By maintaining our public transit system, we can reduce GHG emissions (https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2017/12/12-5-17item15transportationsectorclimateactionstrategy.pdf) and avoid these catastrophic changes to our communities.

Communities Connected to Transit

Three words encapsulate our housing abundance strategy: transit-oriented development (TOD). In the last two decades, many urbanists have turned their attention to creating walkable, affordable, and resilient communities that are well-connected to the places where people work, study, and play. A cornerstone of this vision is built on the idea that we should promote more homes near our public transit corridors.

BART TOD projects like MacArthur Station provide residents access to the vibrant Temescal neighborhood, while allowing easy access to commute to downtown Oakland or San Francisco. Even new project proposals like the Caltrain-adjacent Hillsdale Reimagined (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/hillsdale-endorsement/) in San Mateo demonstrate the durability of TOD in renovating underutilized buildings and turning them into lively community spaces.

That is why Greenbelt Alliance co-sponsored Senate Bill 79 (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/sb79-transit-housing-bill/) in the California legislature, which makes it easier and faster to build homes near public transit. While SB 79 is now law, the risks of public transit’s fiscal cliff diminish the law’s application by making fewer sites viable for TOD upzoning. Other proposed TOD projects funded by transit agencies will likely be reevaluated, too. This could all delay much-needed affordable housing in the Bay Area and worsen the housing crisis.

Saving public transit goes far beyond just our means of commuting. A healthy public transit system reduces traffic, protects us from pollution, reduces GHG emissions, creates resilient neighborhoods, and supports new housing.

This November, vote YES on the Regional Transit Measure.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-for-the-regional-transit-measure-rtm/)

After a successful signature-gathering campaign by Connect Bay Area, the Regional Transit Measure (https://connectbayarea.com/) (RTM) will appear on the November ballots for many Bay Area voters, and Greenbelt Alliance is excited to endorse a YES vote on RTM.

If the Regional Transit Measure passes, the roughly $1 billion in revenue per year will support public transit agencies’ improvements to safety, cleanliness, convenience, seamless integration of transit services, and specific capital projects. The new revenue will be sourced from a 1% sales tax in San Francisco County and a 0.5% sales tax in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties.

The measure aims to prevent catastrophic funding cuts that could impact regional public transit as soon as 2027. These major impacts will particularly hurt BART, Muni, AC Transit, and Caltrain, but will have many downstream consequences for our entire region. If we don’t approve it, the Bay Area will lose its transit backbone, making our weekly commutes longer, causing a dramatic increase in pollution, and leaving us with less time to be with our friends and family.

RTM supports a resilient and sustainable future where our communities are able to use public transit with ease, and we can protect our environment from further greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Please join Greenbelt Alliance, alongside organizations such as 350 Bay Area, SPUR, and Public Advocates, in endorsing the Regional Transit Measure! Vote YES on RTM in November to save the Bay Area’s public transit and fight against climate change.

Additionally, learn more about Proposition H in San Francisco (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-proposition-h-sf/) to further strengthen the Muni transit system in San Francisco.

Why It Matters

The Bay Area is facing its biggest threat to public transportation in decades. With a looming fiscal cliff, major transit agencies—including BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit—may soon have to make difficult decisions to close stations, reduce frequencies, and shorten hours of operation.

To avert this looming crisis, a coalition of advocates came together to launch the Connect Bay Area (https://connectbayarea.com) campaign. Earlier in May, the campaign announced it collected more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot—crushing the minimal threshold of 186,000 required signatures.

Greenbelt Alliance was proud to be part of this grassroots coalition and endorse the Connect Bay Area Campaign. (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/connect-bay-area-transit/)

How We Got Here

"The Bay Area's public transit is a core pillar of our region's ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future. Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution."

Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director

Funding for transit agencies in the Bay Area relies heavily on fares and local revenue sources, so when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and ridership plunged, a substantial amount of that funding disappeared. For a while, agencies were able to stay afloat due to the federal relief stimulus, but that has quickly dried up, and California has not stepped in to address those deficits. Without yearly State funding and with ridership only slowly recovering to pre-pandemic levels, agencies are not seeing the revenue needed to continue operating at full capacity.

To put this into perspective, here is what will happen in 2027 if we do not pass the transit measure:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Red and Green lines will be phased down to just peak hours in January 2027. The Grey line will close at this time, too. The blue line will close in July 2027.
15 stations with the lowest ridership will close, including Millbrae and Warm Springs, by July 2027.
70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles by July 2027.
30% fare increase in January 2027, and a 50% increase in July 2027.
The agency will face a $355-$385 million budget deficit (30% of the operating budget)
Without a funding pathway by mid-2028, BART may have to stop all operations. See more details here (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/%5BBART%20Board%20Workshop%2002-12-2026%5D%20Presentations.pdf).

SFMTA Muni

There will be a 50% cut of Muni services
There will be an elimination of fare discounts and pass programs for youth and seniors
The agency will face a $322-$398 million budget deficit (25% of the operating budget)

AC Transit

There will be a nearly 40% cut to services
The agency will face a $51-$72 million budget deficit (10% of the operating budget)

Caltrain

The agency will run 1 train per hour and cut all weekend service
The agency will face a $65-$76 million budget deficit (42% of the operating budget)

These monumental disruptions to operations are direct consequences of the fiscal cliff. However, it does not account for the myriad ramifications down the road for managing traffic, tackling climate change, meeting our housing needs, and ensuring an affordable California for all.

“Fuming” with Greenhouse Gases

With 41% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/sustainabletransportation) coming from the transportation sector, losing major parts of our public transit system will allow for even more cars on the road and weaken our ability to fight the climate crisis. Without BART, drivers can expect their commute to extend by 12 more hours per week and see traffic across the Bay Bridge surging by 73%. This means less time with family and friends doing the things we love.

In the long term, this may lead to worsening climate hazards, including droughts, flooding, and wildfires. More cars will also be a direct threat to our health and well-being, causing more air pollution (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4243514/#S24), compromising air quality, and increasing respiratory-related illnesses. By maintaining our public transit system, we can reduce GHG emissions (https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2017/12/12-5-17item15transportationsectorclimateactionstrategy.pdf) and avoid these catastrophic changes to our communities.

Communities Connected to Transit

Three words encapsulate our housing abundance strategy: transit-oriented development (TOD). In the last two decades, many urbanists have turned their attention to creating walkable, affordable, and resilient communities that are well-connected to the places where people work, study, and play. A cornerstone of this vision is built on the idea that we should promote more homes near our public transit corridors.

BART TOD projects like MacArthur Station provide residents access to the vibrant Temescal neighborhood, while allowing easy access to commute to downtown Oakland or San Francisco. Even new project proposals like the Caltrain-adjacent Hillsdale Reimagined (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/hillsdale-endorsement/) in San Mateo demonstrate the durability of TOD in renovating underutilized buildings and turning them into lively community spaces.

That is why Greenbelt Alliance co-sponsored Senate Bill 79 (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/sb79-transit-housing-bill/) in the California legislature, which makes it easier and faster to build homes near public transit. While SB 79 is now law, the risks of public transit’s fiscal cliff diminish the law’s application by making fewer sites viable for TOD upzoning. Other proposed TOD projects funded by transit agencies will likely be reevaluated, too. This could all delay much-needed affordable housing in the Bay Area and worsen the housing crisis.

Saving public transit goes far beyond just our means of commuting. A healthy public transit system reduces traffic, protects us from pollution, reduces GHG emissions, creates resilient neighborhoods, and supports new housing.

This November, vote YES on the Regional Transit Measure.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-yes-for-the-regional-transit-measure-rtm/)