Candidate Profiles: Transit Board Races will Shape the Future of Bay Area Transit

Elected transit boards at BART and AC Transit have important competitive races. These boards play crucial roles in funding measures to address the need to save and improve service, and in policies and actions to support a seamless, rider-friendly, well-coordinated, equitable and accessible system.   

Seamless Bay Area participated in the Bay Area’s Sustainable Transportation Candidate Questionnaire Project. The responses show multiple candidates who overall support these goals, as well as some differences in positions and backgrounds. For voters in the districts, here are some highlights on the candidates. You can find more information in the questionnaire responses and the candidate websites.




BART Board District 7 includes parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties.

Candidates Victor Flores and Dana Lang both support a regional transportation funding measure.  

Victor Flores states that “This is going to be the biggest issue on day 1 for all the new BART directors. Having the endorsements of elected officials locally and from the legislature shows that I have the relationships to be a strong advocate for BART” and “my framework for shaping such a measure focuses on how equitable it is and how likely it is to win with voters. We need to ensure it prioritizes operations for the life of the measure and is focused on public transportation.”

Dana Lang states: I am supportive of a regional funding measure if it builds in goals that can be broken into early deliverables, such as:

  • Review of potential operational saving and efficiencies in advance of taxation;

  • Review of potential new or expanded revenue streams (retail, leases, naming rights, franchises, licenses, advertising); 

  • Forecast model that includes savings and allows modification of taxes when in future years if efficiencies and new revenue streams are successful; and

  • A transparent system and internal audits of expenditures and progress.

The detailed attention to levers affecting BART’s finances are in keeping with Lang’s professional background in administering grants for transportation agencies. However, the recommendation to add nuanced policies into a regional measure reflects coming fresh into a topic that has been hotly debated for a year at the region and state legislature. Having BART step up to manage its own finances is welcome, but there is an emerging consensus that it is important to keep a regional funding measure simple in order to get regional and state approval.

On seamless transit, both candidates clearly support participating in Network Management coordination. 

Both candidates support service as essential to maintain and grow ridership, affordability to support low-income riders, and transit-oriented development. The candidates focus on good and different strategies to improve access. Flores emphasizes improving bicycle and pedestrian access to stations; Dana Lang focuses on partnering with community groups and senior centers to assist seniors and disabled riders with person-to-person counseling to register for benefits.




BART Board District 9 represents central San Francisco

Both Wright and Sangirardi strongly support a regional transit funding measure.   

Wright states “I support any regional tax measure to modernize transit funding and solve the fiscal cliffs facing BART and Muni. Sales taxes are inherently regressive and would not be my first choice of revenue source, and I would prefer any number of more progressive sources – from parcel taxes to income taxes. But letting BART fail is far more regressive than any sales tax, and if it’s what we end up with I will do everything in my power to ensure it secures the support it needs to pass.”

Sangirardi states “BART faces an existential fiscal cliff in 2026. [...] [BART has an] antiquated funding model from the 1970s that makes BART 80% reliant on fare and parking fees, dramatically out of line with the industry average for public transit systems being only ~10-25% reliant on fares. [...] I am running, in large part, to champion a ballot measure in 2026 to fix this and save BART. [...] San Francisco doesn’t recover simply because of BART, but it will NOT recover without BART. I plan to campaign for this measure and earn back the trust of voters by making BART safer, cleaner, more reliable, and making BART resilient with new revenue streams (like building housing on BART land).”

Both candidates support seamless transit and participating in the region’s Network Management structure, and in particular growing the region’s integrated fare programs.  

Sangirardi proposes using financial incentives to increase coordination. “We should create a ‘carrot’ of funding that rewards agencies that work toward the greater good of providing reliable interconnected transit service. This incentivized structure would result in lower and more equitable fares for riders in these systems, creating more pressure on agency leadership to better coordinate.” 

Sangirardi also supports “establishing ‘annual passes’ like many other systems (like in Paris) where a flat annual fee is paid by an individual or company for unlimited use. This created predictable/reliable annualized revenue for agencies like BART and data shows it has the impact of incentivizing more regular use.”

Wright states “I support the goals of Seamless Bay Area, and will advocate for them on the BART Board – which was notably the first transit board to endorse the Seamless Transit Principles in 2020. [...] Transfer discounts are happening, and should be continued, and BART needs to continue its leadership in regional coordination. [...] I am also a huge supporter of the BayPass program. [...] Beyond securing more contracts with colleges and universities to expand access for students, outreach should include public and private employers to expand access for workers and building owners and property managers to expand access for tenants.”

With regard to access, Wright proposes to “lead with race and class-conscious decisions, to right historical wrongs and make transit access more affordable and accessible. That means centering transit riders historically put at the margins: people with disabilities, low-income riders, trans and nonbinary people, and people of color. [...] We need to expand fare free access to transit for people who can't afford it, continue and expand discounts for seniors and people with disabilities, and ensure capital projects and maintenance investments prioritize accessibility.”

Under financial stress, Wright would favor service to the urban core. “As BART contends with its deficit and potential service cuts, I would prioritize maintaining weekend and evening service and frequent service between core urban stations, and deprioritize non-peak service for exurban and suburban stations.”

Regarding access, Sangirardi states that “accessibility equipment like elevators and escalators cannot go unfixed. [...] Advocates need to be brought into the conversation at the beginning of planning. As a part of addressing BART's reliability issues, we need money set aside for fixes to infrastructure that people with disabilities rely on, like elevators and escalators. [...] Passing the 2026 ballot measure to fix BART's antiquated funding model is also key to addressing equity issues for transit access. In the meantime, I will support BART's programs to provide reduced fares for lower-income folks, seniors, and young folks.”


AC Transit Ward 6 represents Hayward and Newark

Both candidates strongly support a regional transit funding measure, seamless transit, transit priority and accessibility, with Gunn providing more detailed responses. One of Goward’s answers regarding AC Transit’s staffing challenges raises a red flag.

Gunn states “I support a regional transit funding measure like the one being developed by Senator Aisha Wahab. I’m opposed to fragmented plans where each transit agency is left to fend for itself with separate taxes for AC Transit, BART, MUNI, etc. The solution to our fiscal challenges lies in collaboration, streamlining overhead costs, and making transfers between agencies more efficient and reliable. A tax alone won't solve this problem; real partnerships are essential. Additionally, I would advocate for state and federal support to ensure transit funding is more sustainable, addressing both current issues and long-term solutions for future transit needs.”

Goward states “yes, I support a ballot measure in the form of a regional transportation measure to fund public transportation including AC Transit.”

With regard to seamless transit, both candidates support the current network management structure, with different emphasis on what to improve.

Gunn states “riders should be able to navigate the entire Bay Area seamlessly without having to worry about different fares, schedules, or agencies not coordinating with one another. Centralizing efforts will make public transit more efficient and accessible. As for the current structure, I would advocate for greater involvement from transit agency representatives as voting members rather than just non-voting participants. AC Transit and BART Boards should have a stronger voice in decisions that affect their operations. Additionally, more input from frontline workers, such as operators and maintenance staff, who understand the day-to-day challenges, would ensure that the perspectives of those directly involved in providing the service are integrated into decision-making. This would lead to better, more rider-focused outcomes.”

Goward states “I believe in a unified vision for transit service for the region. Other regions with systems similar to ours are working in that direction. This kind of work is new nationally and at this juncture it is best to explore options before committing to any one path. In my work in other systems, I do not find that distributed leadership models work well for moving initiatives forward. The three committees of the Network Management are important to providing input, but without clear leadership and accountability it is hard to advocate for a world-class region to have a world-class transit system.”

Both candidates support transit priority.

Gunn states “we should expand our Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, including dedicated bus lanes and corridors. Specifically, I support extending BRT South through Mission and Hesperian. Additionally,

implementing signal priority will help keep buses moving efficiently.”

Goward states “It is crucial to ensure that bus services are able to operate effectively. This necessitates structural changes to improve route efficiency and requires collaboration between Alameda County, the cities in Ward 6 and AC Transit and state agencies to ensure that lights are timed, there are bus only

lanes, and queue jumps so buses can move through traffic efficiently.”

With regard to access for people with disabilities, Gunn states “the physical accessibility of our bus stops and buses is critical. This means we need benches, shelters and proper lighting. City efforts to improve walkability and bike-ability of our roads need to take into account accessibility for wheelchairs, particularly for people relying on paratransit. Bollards to protect a bike lane may make it impossible for a paratransit vehicle to pick up a passenger. Bus bulbs are the answer here… Affordability and availability is also key, particularly for our low income riders.

Goward provides a less detailed answer, and a focus on paratransit. “Similar to the previous question, getting to a bus stop if you're slightly disabled, but still mobile can be a challenge. I am temporarily disabled, and can walk, but cannot get to my bus stop because my nearest stop is down a steep hill. The next issue in Ward 6 is paratransit. Paratransit cannot operate where there is no service. As service continues to decline across most of AC Transit due to rising costs and shrinking revenues, and in Ward 6 in particular, residents who are aging are concerned that paratransit will not be there for them when it is time for them to stop driving.”

Regarding AC Transit’s staffing challenges, Goward’s response raises a red flag.

Goward rightly notes that “AC Transit has a need for more bus operators and mechanics as the agency fills in after promotions, and for a reserve as it deals with attrition.”

However, Goward recommends that “AC Transit could replicate the Unitrans program at UC Davis where they hire student drivers, and train them to drive near campus at UC Berkeley, CSU East Bay and other universities in the area.” 

Hiring student drivers may work for Davis in a small transit system serving as a college town. But AC Transit is a major agency in a major urbanized area. Hiring inexperienced, part-time student drivers seems like a significant risk for AC Transit.

Gunn proposes a robust workforce development strategy, including working with labor unions. “We need to prioritize the recruitment and retention of qualified operators and support staff. I would work to enhance hiring incentives, such as competitive salaries, benefits, and signing bonuses, to attract a diverse range of candidates. Retention strategies could include professional development opportunities, mentorship programs, and clear career advancement paths within the agency.”

Gunn continues: “I also believe that by engaging with labor unions to understand their concerns and needs, we can build a positive workplace culture. This collaboration would also involve negotiating fair working conditions and benefits that help to retain skilled workers.

We can also partner with local educational institutions, such as community colleges like Chabot or Ohlone and training programs such as ROP, to create pipeline programs that introduce students to careers in public transit. This can help build a future workforce while also raising awareness of transit careers within the community.”

Adina Levin