How this tracker works

Methodology

What is tracked

SB 63 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 740) requires MTC to conduct a two-phase financial efficiency review of four transit agencies: AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, and Muni (Gov. Code §67762). By July 1, 2026, each agency had to identify the Phase 1 strategies it commits to and adopt them as formal policy or budget actions (§67766(b)). If voters approve the regional measure, a second review follows, and each agency must adopt and follow an implementation plan as a condition of continued funding (§67766(c)-(h)).

This site tracks 35 Phase 1 recommendations: one entry for each “Early Action Strategy” action listed in an agency's section of the Phase 1 report (pp. 56-63). Phase 2 recommendations and implementation-plan commitments will be added when those documents are published.

How the count compares with MTC's. MTC reports 32 Early Action Strategies, 29 of them adopted in whole or in part. MTC counts by strategy heading. This site lists each action separately, so AC Transit's speed-and-reliability strategy appears as three entries and SFMTA's as two. Those three extra entries account for the difference between 32 and 35.

The report's “Strategies for Future Consideration” are not tracked. The report states they “are not considered Early Action Strategies for the purposes of Operator adoption under Senate Bill 63” (p. 49). Where an agency section lists an action that the report's summary tables label as a strategy for future consideration, the entry is tracked and its notes say so.

Status definitions

Each entry has exactly one status. Badges always show a text label; color is only a secondary cue.

Unverified: No primary source has been found that establishes this entry's status. The tracker makes no claim about it until one is found.
Not adopted: The agency's governing board took the action required for this phase and did not include this recommendation. SB 63 lets each agency choose which Phase 1 strategies it commits to (Gov. Code §67766(b)), so this is a recorded choice, not a missed deadline.
Not started: The agency committed to the recommendation, and a primary source states that work has not begun.
Adopted: The agency's governing board formally adopted the recommendation as a policy or budget action. Adoption is a commitment; it does not mean the work is done.
In progress: A primary source documents that work has begun (for example, a study has been contracted, a pilot has launched, or a rate change has been approved but not fully rolled out) and is not complete.
Implemented: A primary source documents that the recommended action is complete: a recommended study has been delivered to the board, or a recommended policy, price, or operating change is in effect.
Missed: A deadline that applies to the entry (statutory, or a completion date the agency or MTC set) has passed, and no primary source documents that the required action was taken.
Superseded: A later formal action replaced this commitment, for example by folding it into an adopted Phase 2 implementation plan. The notes name the replacing action.

Kind of commitment

Each recommendation is also classified by what it commits the agency to do. The classification comes only from wording, never from a judgment about intent or likely results.

Direct action: The agency changes its own prices, service, contracts, practices, or programs (for example: increase, earn, run, extend, offer, continue, adjust, carry out). 13 of 35 tracked recommendations.
Study or plan: The agency produces an analysis or a plan without committing to a change (for example: study, identify, examine, explore, review, develop a vision or plan). 20 of 35 tracked recommendations.
Ask another government: The agency asks another body, such as the state, to act (for example: seek a deferral). 2 of 35 tracked recommendations.

Which wording decides

The board's adopted wording, where there is one. A board's resolution or decision document can restate a strategy differently from the report; that is what the board voted to commit to. Caltrain's Resolution 2026-28, for example, turns the report's “increase parking revenue” into “evaluate opportunities to increase parking revenue.” SFMTA's resolution and BART's decision document restate each strategy, and Caltrain's resolution rewords all six.
The report's wording otherwise. Where a board adopted strategies by reference or by title only, as AC Transit did for most of its strategies, or did not adopt a strategy, the report's wording decides.
The instruction, not the title. When an item has a short title and an instruction (“Identify and Capture Cost Savings in Larger Contract Renewals: Conduct a review of high-spend contracts…”), the instruction decides it.
Action over study. When the deciding wording has both a study verb and an action verb (“identify and enact scheduling efficiencies”), the commitment to act decides it.

Each entry shows the adopted wording, which wording was used, and the exact words the classification rests on. The data checks require those words to appear in that wording. A study can still lead to savings, and a direct action can still produce none; the classification describes the commitment, not its value.

“Aimed at revenue” counts recommendations in the revenue category: measures to raise fare, parking, leasing, or other income rather than to reduce costs.

Adopted versus implemented

Adopted means the agency's governing board voted to commit to the recommendation. It is a statement of intent. Most Phase 1 recommendations are studies or plans, so adoption alone produces no savings.

Implemented requires a primary source showing the recommended action is complete. For a recommended study, that means the study has been delivered to the board or published. For a recommended policy, price, or operating change, it means the change is in effect. A study that is complete is marked implemented even if the agency then decides not to act on its findings; the notes record what the agency decided.

In progress sits between them. It requires documented work, such as an awarded contract, a launched pilot, or an approved rate change that has not fully taken effect. Staff statements that work is “underway,” without more detail, are noted but do not change the status by themselves.

MTC has added the adopted Phase 1 strategies to its Productivity Improvement Program (MTC Res. 4743, revised Aug. 26, 2026), with an estimated completion date of June 2029 for each. Agencies report progress in their annual Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance funding claims. Those reports are a primary source for status changes.

Sources and evidence rules

Every entry and milestone links to at least one primary source: the statute, the review report, or a document published by MTC or the agency (board agendas, staff reports, resolutions, minutes, official news releases, and other agency documents). News media coverage is not used as a source.
The review report alone cannot establish a status. Any status other than “Unverified” requires a board item or other agency or MTC document.
Statuses are not inferred. If sources conflict or are unclear, the entry stays “Unverified” and its notes describe the conflict.
Dollar figures appear only where a source states them. The Phase 1 report does not estimate savings for individual strategies, so Phase 1 entries show “Not estimated.” Figures the report gives for past savings are not reused as estimates.
Page numbers refer to the page of the PDF file, which can differ from the number printed on the page.
A copy of the chaptered statute is kept at sources/sb63-chaptered.pdf, because the Legislature's website sometimes blocks automated access.

How often the data is checked

Each entry shows a “last verified” date: the last date someone re-read its sources and confirmed its status.
Entries are re-checked at least monthly, and after any MTC, oversight committee, or agency board meeting with an SB 63 item on its agenda.
An automated check runs weekly. It tests every source link and opens a public issue in the project repository when a link breaks.
Every change to the data is recorded in the changelog, which is generated from the version history of the data files.

Agencies outside the review

The efficiency review covers 4 of the 15 agencies that receive a direct share of measure revenue under Gov. Code §67750(b)(2)-(16). The other 11 are outside the review and outside this tracker's scope; SB 63's efficiency-review requirements do not apply to them. (MTC's fare, accessibility, and wayfinding programs, §67750(b)(10)-(12), are also not tracked.)

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) (Alameda County small bus operator, §67750(b)(6); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Union City Transit (Alameda County small bus operator, §67750(b)(6); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) (Contra Costa County small bus operator, §67750(b)(7); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) (Contra Costa County small bus operator, §67750(b)(7); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit) (Contra Costa County small bus operator, §67750(b)(7); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
San Francisco Bay Ferry (WETA) (§67750(b)(8); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Golden Gate Transit (Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District) (§67750(b)(9); maintenance of effort applies, §67770)
Alameda County Transportation Commission (county share for public transit expenses and road repaving, §67750(b)(13))
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (county share for public transit expenses and road repaving, §67750(b)(14))
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) (county share for public transit expenses and road repaving, §67750(b)(15))
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (county share for public transit expenses and road repaving, §67750(b)(16))

Source: SB 63, Gov. Code §67700(b), (h) (PDF p. 4) and §67750(b) (PDF pp. 9-12).

Corrections policy

If you believe an entry is wrong or out of date, email movesanmateo@gmail.com or open an issue. Please include the entry ID, shown at the bottom of each expanded entry, and a link to the primary source.

Requests are reviewed within five business days.
Agencies and MTC are held to the same standard as everyone else: a correction needs a primary source.
When a correction changes a status, the entry's notes say what was corrected and when. Earlier versions are never deleted; the changelog shows the old and new values.

Who maintains this site

This tracker is made by Max Mautner, who lives in San Mateo and writes about transportation and housing at maxmautner.com. He supports public transit, and his essays on that site take positions. This tracker does not: it is not affiliated with or funded by MTC, any transit agency, or any campaign, and it takes no position on the measure.

To keep it reliable, every status is held to the same evidence rule whether it reflects well or poorly on an agency: a primary source, linked, with a page number. The data and every edit to it are public, so anyone can check the work, and corrections follow the policy above.

Like the rest of maxmautner.com, this site uses Google Analytics to count visits and see which pages, sources, and downloads people use. It sets no other trackers and shows no ads.