With a little more than 2 months remaining until the November 2026 elections, the time has arrived for the Eno Center’s annual Transportation at the Ballot Box series, which will track transportation ballot measures through the November election and examine what the results mean for communities and transportation agencies across the country.  

Transportation-related questions are taking shape on ballots across the country. Voters will have the opportunity to decide on raising revenue to prevent transit cuts and renewing taxes that support infrastructure improvements, among other questions related to transportation projects and policies at the state, county, and local level. From now until the November election, Eno will provide coverage on key ballot measures, results, and what it all means for transportation policy.  

This week, we introduce the series and provide an initial preview of what kinds of measures are currently on the ballot. The list of measures continues to grow as campaigns gather signatures and election officials determine which proposals qualify for the ballot. However, the current measures identified so far reveal several early trends for transportation ballot measures:  

• Sales taxes are the most common proposed funding mechanism. 

• Most transit agencies are asking voters to support funding to maintain existing service, while a few are proposing to expand services. 

• Ballot measures are bundling funding for transit with roads and other public infrastructure priorities. 

• Local measures dominate the 2026 ballot landscape. 

Sales Taxes Remain the Preferred Funding Tool 

Sales taxes dominate Eno’s current list of transportation measures on 2026 ballots. Of the transportation-related proposals identified so far, most would create, renew, or increase a local sales tax. Communities considering this approach are spread out across the country, from the Bay Area and Arizona, to counties in Georgia and South Carolina. 

Preference for sales tax is not new: in previous years of the Eno Center’s Ballot Box series, sales taxes also dominated the ballot measures. The continued reliance on sales taxes reflects their familiarity to voters and legislators as well as their potential for robust, reliable revenue. A relatively small rate increase can generate substantial funding when applied across a city, county, or metropolitan region. Sales taxes also collect revenue from visitors and commuters, which makes sales taxes more politically attractive than taxes imposed only on property owners or residents.  

Measures in several communities are actually more extensions or replacements of existing taxes rather than entirely new funding sources. Fresno County, California’s proposal would supersede Measure C, the county’s existing half-cent transportation sales tax. Cobb County, Georgia voters will consider renewing a one-percent Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax for another six years beginning in 2028. Charleston County, South Carolina is considering a half-cent measure that would extend a transportation tax initially approved in 2004. In a vote that already took place in the August 4, 2026 primary in Washington, Spokane County voters approved a 20-year extension, running through 2048, of the sales tax that supports Spokane Transit Authority service. That vote passed narrowly with about 51.5 percent support.  

These long-term measures provide agencies with predictable revenue and allow regions to plan beyond annual budget cycles. But the duration of the tax also raises the stakes, particularly when voters are not just approving a tax but also approving policies to dedicate the revenues to specific projects, modes, or uses. This structure means voters are endorsing spending priorities that will shape transportation policy for many years.  

The Connect Bay Area initiative illustrates the scale of these proposed decisions. The regional measure will raise around $1 billion over 14 years for BART, San Francisco Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain, and other public transit providers. The tax rate would not be the same across the region: a one percent sales tax in San Francisco, where the fiscal need is greatest, and half a percent sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. In South Carolina, Charleston County’s proposed measure is set to generate around $4.25 billion over 25 years that will be dedicated towards road infrastructure, public transit, and pedestrian infrastructure . The size and length of these proposals in California and South Carolina will impact local government spending plans and the public’s confidence in those plans. 

Transit Measures Are Increasingly About Preserving Service 

As regular readers of ETW will know, many transit agencies continue to face fiscal challenges, so it is no surprise that transit service is prominent in the 2026 ballot landscape, and many proposals focus on maintaining services that agencies already provide. 

The San Francisco Bay Area offers the clearest example. The Connect Bay Area proposal establishes a regional revenue source for several transit operators facing long-term financial pressures. Reduced fare revenue, changing travel patterns, and the expired temporary assistance have left agencies warning that they will need to reduce service without new funding. 

San Francisco voters will also consider Stronger Muni for All, a separate parcel-tax proposal dedicated to Muni operations and service improvements. Property owners would pay different amounts based on the type and size of their properties. Voters in San Francisco could face a regional sales and a local parcel tax intended, in part, to address the same transit funding crisis.  

The two measures demonstrate the scale of the Bay Area’s challenge. They also show how agencies and advocates are pursuing multiple levels of funding to address a critical issue for transit in the region. Connect Bay Area would distribute revenue across a regional transit network, while Stronger Muni for All would provide additional support to one city operator.  

Other proposals pair service preservation with more visible improvements. Pierce County, Washington, is considering a measure that would raise the local sales tax from 0.6 to 0.9 percent, expanding bus service by roughly 47 percent, improving frequency, and positioning the bus network to connect with light rail when it reaches the Tacoma Dome. Spokane’s approved renewal maintains current transit service while supporting the agency’s Connect 2035 plan and planned bus rapid transit on Division Street.  

These campaigns suggest that transit agencies recognize the limits of asking voters to merely close a budget gap. More frequent service, improved reliability, and stronger regional connections can turn a defensive appeal into a forward-looking transportation plan. 

Broad Packages vs Single-Mode Measures 

While some measures focus primarily on transit, several of the 2026 measures combine several transportation modes or place transportation alongside other public services. 

Sacramento’s Safe Streets and Affordable Transit proposal, which fell short of qualifying for the November ballot, would have divided its funding almost evenly between street maintenance and transit, at 48 percent each. It would also have supported street safety and infrastructure associated with transit-oriented housing, with smaller shares for oversights and audits. The structure combined the interests of drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, and housing advocates into one measure, and its organizers are now looking to include it on the ballot in 2028. 

Tempe, Arizona’s proposal extends beyond transportation. Its half-percent sales-tax increase divides revenue among public safety, transportation, and early-childhood care and pre-school education. Cobb County’s sales-tax renewal similarly includes road and transportation improvements as part of a larger capital program covering parks, libraries, senior services, fire stations, courts, recreation facilities, and technology. 

The previously mentioned Charleston County proposal combines infrastructure and transit investments with its longstanding Greenbelt program, which funds lands conservation, parks, trails, and natural resources protection.  

These packages can help campaigns assemble broad coalitions. A transit-only measure can struggle to attract residents who rarely use transit, while a package that also includes road repair, pedestrian improvements, parks or public safety increases the likelihood that a voter will perceive direct benefits. 

However, bundling also creates tradeoffs. A measure advertised as supporting transportation but bundled with other services will devote only a part of the revenue to transit or other mobility projects. Broader packages can also make it harder for voters to understand what the tax will fund, unless the measure provides a breakdown of what percentage of the revenues goes to each element. It is important for campaigns to communicate how the revenue is divided.  

Roads and Transit Are Competing for Position 

The current list of measures also exposes a tension in how communities define which modes receive priority in funding. 

Fresno County provides a clear example. The Fix Our Roads plan would have devoted 82 percent of revenue to roads and 18 percent to transit, but this measure never qualified for the ballot. The Better Roads, Safe Streets plan would dedicate around 65 percent to existing neighborhood roads and 25 percent to public transportation, with the remainder supporting regional connectivity, access, innovation, and administration. The county Board of Supervisors declined to place the measure on the ballot despite certified signatures, citing that the initiative seemed too “prescriptive,” as to what the county can do with the money and that the language was too vague. The state legislature responded with Assembly Bill 1923 directing the measure to appear on the November ballot. The county has since sued the state over that law, leaving the measure’s placement subject to litigation as ballots go to print. The issue here is what the sales-tax renewal should accomplish and whether transit should retain a significant place in the county’s long-term transportation program.  

Colorado voters face a related question at the state level. Initiative 175 would require revenue from certain transportation-related taxes and fees to support “road transportation,” including roads, bridges, driver safety, planning, engineering, and the Colorado State Patrol. The measure could reduce the amount available for other transportation services. Colorado lawmakers have already passed contingent legislation, House Bill 26-1430, that would cut fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees if Initiative 175 is approved. 

Together, the measures from Fresno and Colorado illustrate a common tension. Many ballot measures use the language of multimodal transportation, but voters and political leaders may disagree about whether revenue should primarily maintain roads or support a wider range of mobility options. The outcomes could influence how future campaigns define transportation spending plans. 

Transportation Ballot Activity Remains Local 

Most of the measures identified so far operate at the city, county, or metropolitan level. Colorado’s Initiative 175 is the principal statewide transportation measure in the current list. The remaining proposals depend largely on local voters to approve revenue for local or regional systems. California accounts for a particularly large share of the 2026 activity, but even there, the measures operate at different geographic scales. 

Targeted local measures have generally succeeded so far in 2026. Pima County voters approved the RTA Next Plan and its half-cent sales tax in March, Marin and Sonoma counties extended the SMART rail tax by roughly 70 percent in June, and a wave of county transit millages passed across Michigan in August. In Oregon however, voters rejected a legislative package of gas tax, registration, and payroll-tax increases for using public transit by 83 percent to 17 percent in May, though a single result is not sufficient evidence for a national pattern. 

What to Watch for in November 

In the November elections, there are several questions that will help connect the individual results to broader national trends.  

First, will voters pay more just to keep what they have, and approve taxes designed to prevent transit cuts? The Bay Area will provide the test on whether the threat of reduced service can build enough support for long-term operating revenue. 

Second, will voters favor broad packages over dedicated transit measures? Tempe, Cobb County, Charleston County, and Fresno will show whether combining transportation with roads, safety, housing, conservation, or other local priorities strengthens a campaign or makes its purpose less clear.  

Third, how will voters balance roads and transit? Fresno and Colorado’s measures could demonstrate whether voters prefer multimodal funding plans or proposals that direct a larger share of transportation revenue towards roads.  

Finally, will voters respond differently to tax renewals and new taxes? Campaigns in Fresno, Cobb County, Charleston County, and Spokane can emphasize that they are continuing existing revenue rather than imposing an unfamiliar tax. That distinction may prove important as household affordability and skepticism about government spending shape the election. 

Together, the 2026 ballot measures will show whether voters are willing to provide stable, long-term transportation revenue; whether maintaining service is a compelling case for new funding; and how communities balance transit against roads and other public priorities. As the ballot landscape develops, Eno will follow these measures and examine what their outcomes mean for transportation agencies and the communities they serve.