Can we trust the sales pitch when the same interests help write the tax measure, finance the campaign, and produce the research telling us to approve it? That is the question behind Measure RTM, a projected $17 billion sales-tax increase to fund Bay Area transit on November ballots.
Follow the connections among the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the Bay Area Council, Seamless Bay Area, their corporate supporters and the Yes campaign, and the appearance of independent expertise gives way to a network of overlapping insider special interests.
SPUR’s new apocalyptic Bumper to Bumper report warns that without RTM and a separate San Francisco transit tax, service cuts “would likely spell the end of transit in the Bay Area.” Its traffic forecasts fed alarming headlines predicting a transit “death spiral” and Bay Bridge delays more than doubling. ABC7 News even described the report as “independent,” though its publisher is a sponsor of the measure it promotes.
SPUR, a tax-exempt nonprofit actively working to pass the tax, acknowledges that it sponsored RTM. Its annual report describes its work developing SB 63, joining the campaign committee and supporting signature gathering. Its transportation policy director, the report’s author, identified herself as a principal officer of that political action committee. SPUR’s president and CEO also serves as treasurer of the Yes on RTM campaign and signed its latest campaign finance disclosure.
Campaign disclosures add another connection: SPUR contributed more than $53,000 in staff time and event support to the Yes on RTM campaign so far. Several transit agencies themselves also appear among SPUR’s donors or business members.
The firm credited with analysis in Bumper to Bumper is no independent bystander. Jacobs and its affiliates have more than $120 million in identified, currently authorized contracts with BART, MTC, SFMTA, SamTrans, Golden Gate, and Caltrain — public bodies that stand to receive or administer RTM funding. Jacobs contributed $150,000 to the Yes on RTM campaign, appears in SPUR’s $5,000–$9,999 business donor tier, and has an executive serving as a Bay Area Council policy committee cochair. The firm helping forecast the consequences of rejecting the tax is also financing its passage and doing substantial business with its prospective beneficiaries.
Jacobs’ BART history adds another reason for scrutiny. It served as construction manager on the Transbay Tube retrofit, where an inspector general investigation found inadequately verified billings, leading to $1.7 million in settlements with the construction and management firms. The inspector general did not characterize the conduct as corruption or make a legal finding of wrongdoing. But voters weighing the firm’s research should also know its record, its agency contracts and its financial commitment to passing the tax.
Jacobs modeled the traffic apocalypse using service-cut projections supplied by the transit agencies seeking the tax money, but the report presents no independent financial analysis establishing that those cuts are necessary. Voters are being sold the consequences of the agencies’ proposed choices — with analytical support from a major agency contractor and campaign donor.
The report does not disclose Jacobs’ SPUR contribution, its $150,000 in contributions to the Yes on RTM campaign or its agency contracts. Nor does it explain whether Jacobs was paid for the analysis or identify an independent review of its projections. Yet its forecasts help sell a stark choice: pay more or face gridlock.
These connections began before the campaign: leaders of SPUR, the Bay Area Council and Seamless Bay Area held seats on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2024 Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee, helping shape the funding proposal alongside transit labor representatives, while a companion group brought together leaders of the transit agencies seeking funding.
The Bay Area Council helped shape SB 63 and its spending plan; its transportation policy executive signed the formal notice to circulate the initiative. Its chief executive chairs the campaign and holds a nonvoting seat on MTC and the tax district’s board. Its campaign leadership connects the council’s policy work directly to the effort to pass the tax.
Seamless Bay Area helped organize the signature drive. Campaign disclosures show it received $115,000 for petition circulating and another $9,000 for consulting — a total of $124,000. Its role as a paid campaign organization belongs alongside its public advocacy, just as SPUR’s campaign contributions and the council’s campaign leadership belong alongside theirs.
The same network helps shape the tax, supplies campaign money and services, and produces the research used to sell it. Calling the participants nonprofits or their work nonpartisan does not make them independent of the outcome. If transit insiders want voters’ trust, they should start by being transparent about their own financial and campaign ties. Why entrust them with another $17 billion without requiring credible, independent accountability?
Debora Allen is a former BART Board director.
The Voice welcomes submissions of unsolicited op-eds and letters to the editor. Acceptance and publication is solely the prerogative of The Voice; no payment is offered for op-eds and letters to the editor. Any opinions expressed in op-eds and letters to the editor are those solely of the writer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Voice of San Francisco, its staff, contributors, sponsors, or donors. Send op-eds and letters to: Editor@thevoicesf.org.
This editorial has been updated.
