Philbrick: What is the value of investing in transit? ^⁠26%

8/6/2026, 12:00:24 PM

Topics: Infrastructure Investment, Public Transportation, Taxation, Government Funding

Keywords: Transit, Transportation Funding, Gas Tax, Public Trust, Bart, Santa Clara County, Sales Tax

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Availability Heuristic, and Pessimism Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.4% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 576 faulty-reasoning hits from 735 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (21,334 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.00% of the article peer group.

Confidence50%

underlinesheatmap

735 words

When you’re swerving around a pothole, waiting for a late bus or walking across a busy intersection, you’re seeing transportation funding in action whether you realize it or not.

But California’s challenge isn’t simply finding enough money to maintain the roads, bridges and transit systems we rely on — it’s earning the public’s trust that every transportation dollar will produce meaningful results.

So, who pays for mobility?

The primary source of transportation funding is the federal gas tax, which has remained unchanged since 1993.

However, if you are like most Americans, you probably didn’t know that — a national survey found that only 3% knew the federal gas tax rate hasn’t changed.

These days, at just 18.4 cents per gallon, the federal gas tax buys far less than it did more than three decades ago.

Construction materials, labor, equipment and maintenance costs have all risen dramatically while vehicles have become increasingly fuel efficient.

If Congress wanted the tax to have the same purchasing power today that it had when it was set in 1993, it would need to be roughly 42 cents per gallon.

A tax rate that was set when a gallon of milk cost about $2 is now expected to maintain a transportation system in a world where that same gallon costs more than $4 on average.

In other words, the federal government is attempting to maintain a modern transportation network with a revenue source whose purchasing power has fallen by more than half.

The result is a funding model pushed to its breaking point.

California is experiencing those challenges firsthand.

The state’s gas tax increased by 2.2 cents per gallon on July 1 to try to remedy some of this, but that increase does not allow the funding to catch up with rising costs.

Around the Bay Area, many are still feeling enormous financial pressure, including many transit agencies.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which provided 55.6 million passenger trips in 2025, is now running service using emergency funds that will run out in 2026.

Without new funding, approximately 30% of all stations will close .

An opportunity to address that funding gap is coming in November.

Bay Area voters will consider a measure proposing a 0.5% transit sales tax increase in Santa Clara County expected to generate nearly $980 million annually to help sustain transit service and improve regional mobility.

If the November measure doesn’t pass, Californians may face more difficult decisions about which transportation projects get funded.

Indeed, many transit systems are preparing for the worst: BART’s plan includes service cuts, station closures, fare increases, a 40% reduction in system support services, laying off 1,200 employees, a series of deferrals and more.

How do we show voters the value of investing in mobility?

When a 16-year transportation funding survey asked thousands of Americans about raising federal gas tax rates and mileage fees, results showed that large majorities supported funding transportation improvements.

However, that support varied quite dramatically depending on how participants understood how their dollars would be spent.

When respondents were asked about increasing the federal gas tax simply to fund “transportation,” support was relatively modest (38%).

However, when that same revenue was dedicated to specific purposes — such as maintaining roads and bridges or improving safety — support increased substantially.

For example, if the revenue would be dedicated to maintenance of roads and other infrastructure, 75% of respondents supported increasing the federal gas tax by 10 cents per gallon.

Likewise, 72% supported it when the money was dedicated to safety.

These findings suggest that public support depends not only on how transportation is funded, but also on whether people trust that their dollars will produce meaningful, accountable results that they can see and experience.

The bottom line — people want better transportation.

Safer, more efficient, more reliable roads and transit.

To make that happen, we need to raise revenue and earn public trust.

Through transparency and accountability, we can prove that transportation funding is investing in a better future for California and Californians.

San José Spotlight columnist Karen E.

Philbrick is the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, a research institute focusing on multimodal surface transportation policy and management issues.