Santa Clara VTA aligns with California Senate Bill 63
Santa Clara VTA Joins California Senate Bill 63 to Secure Funding for Local Transit Improvements
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has taken a significant step towards securing funding for its Visionary Network, a plan aimed at improving frequency, reliability, and connectivity in the region. The VTA's Board of Directors has voted to join California Senate Bill 63 (SB 63), a regional transportation funding measure that could provide the agency with approximately $264 million annually.
SB 63 is a proposed regional sales tax measure designed to address a fiscal crisis facing Bay Area transit agencies, including BART, Caltrain, MUNI, AC Transit, and WETA. The bill enables a regional sales tax increase of up to 0.5%, with the potential for variable rates by county, to provide sustainable funding for these agencies.
If passed, SB 63 would create a special district across five counties—San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would govern the decision-making for expenditure allocation. Up to 5% of revenues would be reserved for transformative regional investments, while up to 1% could be used for administrative costs.
By joining SB 63, the Santa Clara VTA is committing to preventing service cuts in collaboration with several Bay Area counties. Without SB 63, agencies like BART could face cuts up to 85% in service, with serious reductions in frequency, station closures, and fare subsidies elimination.
The key features of SB 63 include its structure as a citizens' ballot measure, requiring a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass. It is also designed to improve financial efficiency and coordination among participating transit agencies, fostering a more integrated regional transit network.
The regional investments proposed by SB 63 include enhancing speed and reliability, streamlining fare programs, and unifying wayfinding across systems. SB 63 will also provide funds for critical needs such as the agency's Visionary Network in Santa Clara County. Additionally, it supports cross-county paratransit.
The Santa Clara VTA Board Chair, Sergio Lopez, stated that the board's vote affirms the agency's regional leadership role. Carolyn Gonot, the General Manager and CEO of Santa Clara VTA, stated that SB 63 represents a transformative opportunity to invest in the future of public transit. With SB 63, the Santa Clara VTA aims to deliver faster, more reliable service and ensure equitable access for all riders across Santa Clara County.
The measure is proposed for the November 2026 ballot and is seen as critical to preserving transit services that are essential to economic activity, equity, and environmental goals across the Bay Area. The vote allows Bay Area residents to protect and transform vital public transit services.
References:
[1] California Senate Bill 63 (SB 63) Fact Sheet. (2022, March 2). Retrieved from https://www.transbaycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SB-63-Fact-Sheet.pdf
[2] California Senate Bill 63 (SB 63) Explainer. (2022, March 2). Retrieved from https://www.transbaycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SB-63-Explainer.pdf
[3] Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Joins California Senate Bill 63 (SB 63). (2022, March 2). Retrieved from https://www.vta.org/news/santa-clara-valley-transportation-authority-vta-joins-california-senate-bill-63-sb-63
[4] California Senate Bill 63 (SB 63) Could Save Bay Area Transit Agencies from Major Service Cuts. (2022, March 2). Retrieved from https://www.transbaycenter.com/news/california-senate-bill-63-sb-63-could-save-bay-area-transit-agencies-from-major-service-cuts/
Read also:
- Catastrophic blast at a US Steel facility in Pennsylvania causes 2 fatalities, inflicts injuries on 10 individuals
- Weekly developments in the German federal parliament, the Bundestag
- Solar Shutdown: Merz Proposes Billions of Gas Discharge - Reverse Plan
- New guidelines for NEPA processes unveiled by federal agencies, in alignment with Executive Order 14154 and the Seven County Decision of the Supreme Court
