Dear Editor,
Your Feb. 10, 2026 article ‘Officials pressure BART to apply for funding: California transportation funds could help complete planned Irvington Station” omits crucial historical context about who is actually responsible for funding this project.
Between 1992 and 1995, Fremont sued BART to force construction of a tunnel under Lake Elizabeth instead of elevated tracks through Central Park. After the city lost in appeals court, the parties reached a quid pro quo: BART would build the expensive subway alignment, and Fremont would fund the Irvington station. This was confirmed by former BART director Thomas Blalock and former Fremont Mayor Gus Morrison in a 2017 East Bay Times article (eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/22/bart-riders-fremont-residents-hope-relief-is-on-the-way-with-warm-springs-station-opening/).
BART fulfilled its commitment, building the tunnel at significantly higher cost. Fremont committed to funding the station through Measure BB and other local sources.
The city’s funding responsibility is explicitly documented in official records. A December 2018 presentation by the city public works director to the Alameda County Transportation Commission states: “City/Agency responsible for all future costs” of the then-estimated $120 million project (alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/P4-B-Irvington-Station-Update-Jim-Pierson.pdf). When Measure B reauthorization lacked sufficient funds, the station became “optional” and the “City agreed to find funding.”
More significantly, Fremont’s own Irvington BART Station Area Plan includes a 17-page chapter titled “Implementation and Financing Plan” detailing how the city would fund the station through development impact fees, Mello-Roos districts, special assessments, bonds and grants including Measure BB, SB 1 and OBAG (fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2171/637754430159300000). The plan states the city is “prepared to make strategic use of development impact fee revenue and available grant funding as needed.”
Now Senator Wahab and Mayor Salwan criticize BART for not pursuing state grants—reframing BART’s position as “inaction” rather than honoring an agreement where Fremont accepted funding responsibility in exchange for the costly Central Park tunnel. This shifts blame from the city’s failure to implement its own financing plan to BART, despite BART facing a fiscal crisis. The city seems to be gaslighting the public about BART’s funding responsibility.
The public deserves to know this history. Fremont made a commitment, received what it bargained for, created detailed plans to fund the station and now appears to be walking away from its obligations while pointing fingers at BART.
Sincerely,
William Yragui
Mission Peak Conservancy, Fremont
