I. Introduction

Throughout the 2020s, major transit systems across the country have faced fiscal uncertainty. Apathy or outright hostility towards transit funding in Washington and state capitals has threatened transit systems’ futures. In Washington, the Trump administration has worked to sabotage funding for crucial projects such as the MTA 2nd Avenue subway project. The administration has also threatened funding for transit systems under the premise of concerns over crime. More recently, the administration has pushed to tie transit funding to birth rates, a clear display that it values culture war-signaling over real investment in transit. In a clear show of how federal lawmakers feel transit funding is not a priority, Congress extended highway and transit funding while allowing additional advance appropriations for transit and passenger rail to lapse.

Amidst a hostile federal environment for transit funding, communities are being forced to take action. Five weeks after the funding lapse, voters in around two dozen communities will be forced to save transit systems. This includes a multi-county spending referendum in the Bay Area that will help decide the future of transit in one of America’s economic engines. The outcome of these referenda will help determine whether many Americans, already faced with limited mobility options, will be able to depend on transit to get to work or to access basic services.

II. The Politics of Transit Funding

2026 OVERVIEW

Per Smart Cities Dive, some two dozen transit-related measures will be voted on at the county and local levels in November. Despite high-profile transit expansions in recent years, namely the D Line Extension in Los Angeles, the bulk of these referenda aim at securing funding for existing service. In other words, transit agencies and the people who rely on them are forced to be on the defensive. Per Eno Center for Transportation analysis, proposed sales taxes are the most common funding mechanism.

Observers have noted that relying on sales taxes for transit funding is imperfect given how sales tax revenue often fluctuates. At the federal level, transit funding has come substantially from fuel taxes. Historically, Congress has directed around 80% of fuel-tax increases to highways, while giving transit systems 20%. While Congress let additional transit funding lapse, the highway share of this federal funding arrangement has gone untouched. As a result, individuals reliant on transit are now being forced to carry the fiscal burden through regressive sales taxes. Notable exceptions to this include a separate Muni parcel-tax proposal in San Francisco. Under the San Francisco proposal, tax rates would vary by property type and size. It’s worth noting that even the local Chamber of Commerce has acknowledged that this measure to support transit infrastructure is essential to the local economy.

Throughout 2026, communities have largely voted in favor of sales tax extensions to fund transit. August 2026 primary voters in Spokane County, Washington voted for a transit sales tax extension with around 51.5%. This vote will help safeguard the county’s existing transit infrastructure, while also supporting plans to establish a second Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line. In Arizona, Pima County voted in favor of a $2.67 billion RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) Next plan funded via a half-cent sales tax. This measure will help maintain expanded hours for Tucson’s Sun Tran transit system. In California, Marin and Sonoma counties voted to extend the SMART rail tax through Measure B.

ORGANIZED MONEY AGAINST TRANSIT

The fact that transit access is crucial to a region’s economic well-being is precisely why expansion proposals have faced organized opposition from money-interests. In 2018, for example, the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity fought to defeat Nashville’s $5.4 billion transit referendum. As part of its effort, the group built an expansive campaign infrastructure, reportedly knocking on over 6,000 doors and making over 40,000 calls to defeat a measure to expand mobility. Unfortunately for riders in the region, this effort contributed to the referendum’s ultimate defeat.

In Fresno County, California, the proposed Measure S would keep in place a longstanding half-cent transportation sales tax dating to 1987. In doing so, the proposal would direct more funding toward transit infrastructure, while restricting road expansion. Unsurprisingly, this has led to significant and well-funded opposition. One developer and contractor, Richard Spencer, contributed $25,000 to the measure’s opposition committee. Per their official ballot rebuttal, opponents of the measure object to the fact the proposal would boost transit spending and implement restrictions on road expansion.

STAKES OF REFERENDA

The Bay Area referendum makes the stakes of these referendums for workers clear. BART’s contingency plan for a failed funding measure, absent another revenue source, includes trains running every 30 minutes, a 9 p.m. shutdown and a 30 percent fare increase beginning in January 2027. If these go into effect, non-car owners in the Bay Area will see their opportunities for work and other essential daily activities even more limited. Lower-income residents of the Bay Area, priced out of communities in the region’s core, already face daunting commute times. If these policy changes are implemented, they will have even fewer options for commuting by rail to work. Moreover, this will likely force many workers who do not drive to purchase a car, contributing to further congestion in the region. The lack of urgency among California officials including Gov. Gavin Newsom to address BART’s fiscal crisis has long been the target of criticism by transit advocates.

It must be stressed that, as it currently stands, transit options are out of reach for most Americans, including residents of urban areas. Instead of working to expand transit access to ensure America catches up to other industrialized economies, lawmaker neglect means that voters are on the hook for even ensuring maintenance. Per the American Public Transportation Association, 45 percent of Americans have absolutely no access to public transit, to say nothing of the far larger number who can only access infrequent and poorly-maintained service.

III. Conclusion

Underinvestment in transit infrastructure forces Americans to rely on personal automobiles for mobility. This arrangement is financially expensive, particularly amid high fuel costs, and forces more Americans to waste time in traffic. Washington allowing additional transit funding to lapse while continuing to fund expensive highway projects shows how little lawmakers think of both transit systems and the millions who rely on them. State and federal lawmakers must view transit infrastructure as a crucial investment in giving Americans more options for mobility.