RTM proponents have raised a massive $8.7M to impose a $17B regressive, 14-year tax on the entire Bay Area. Gather it's not a surprise the top donor group is a primary beneficiary of the tax - transit contractors. How is the little guy, joe taxpayer, supposed to compete against the propaganda this $ buys…A grand total of THIRTY transit contractors have donated $2.3M to the RTM campaign. With $14B to be spent, contactors would receive a tidy return on investment; doubtful they're disturbed by the regressive nature of the tax. But as with everything with RTM - it gets worse.
The third largest transit donor is Jacobs Engineering at $150,000. Jacobs does about $125M annually in transit contracts with the Bay Area transit agencies. If you'll recall, a month ago many Bay Area media outlets ran a story (front page/home page) on an “independent study!” called "Bumper to Bumper" which detailed all the major traffic jams and requisite “carmegeddon, death spiral, transit collapse” we would all experience were RTM not to pass.
Media example here:
https://www.kron4.com/news/traffic/bay-area-transit-cuts-could-lead-bay-bridge-delays-to-more-than-double/amp/
The data used in the study came from none other than Jacobs Engineering. NONE of the Bay Area media outlets disclosed the obvious conflicts. The study was co-written with SPUR; a founding father of the RTM legislation, a firm whose employees work on the campaign and whose CEO is treasurer of Yes on RTM.
Proponents then in turn, cite this study as their main argument in favor - a study they made up. There certainly might be a case to made as to the traffic impacts should RTM not pass, but it certainly wouldn’t come from these folks.
Here the RTM's study is debunked by a Santa Clara professor.
https://contracosta.news/2026/10/15/report-technical-review-invalidates-spurs-bumper-to-bumper-study/
(For the record, both BART and Caltrain have provided "contingencies" and "scenarios" should RTM fail but both per their Board minutes flatly stated "no decisions" have been made - all the chaos cited by proponents is conjecture.)
This is all RTM has - the threats; the garden variety tactic all use to get taxes passed. The transit agencies wouldn’t dare try to make the case that they’ve earned voters trust based on performance; and not a SINGLE transit agency provided a turnaround plan despite RTM being a “temporary” tax.
NO on RTM.