The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Rocque Perez
Voters deserve honesty about RTA Next. I’ve reviewed the plan, the reporting, the endorsements, and the criticism as one of the Tucson Council members who signed onto the letter supporting the final revised version we see on the ballot. I want to explain why I did — and why I will now be voting no.
The last-minute revision of RTA Next was significantly better than earlier versions under prior leadership. It added transit safety funding and strengthened the commitment to sustaining the fare-free transit system we have today. Supporting continued free transit — with greater safety capacity — was the reason I joined that letter alongside my then colleagues.
But a late improvement does not fix a flawed structure.
Our elected leaders are in a difficult position. I understand the perspective of those currently serving — especially those in Tucson looking to the RTA as a funding source for corridor work and long-needed projects. Those needs are real. But recognizing them does not require accepting a system that remains structurally inequitable for another 20 years.
Over the past several years, Tucson’s mayor has been the most consistent and vocal critic of the RTA’s governance structure and funding outcomes, repeatedly raising concerns about representation, fairness, and return on investment for Tucson residents. Concerns I shared and I feel remain unresolved in the measure before voters.
When the original RTA was approved in 2006, transit was the focal point of the plan — most visibly through the streetcar investment that expanded our transit footprint in the heart of Tucson. That vision helped define public support, but what’s before us today shows that emphasis has shifted and would only maintain existing service levels, while RTA Next does next to nothing to correct the structural inequities in governance and allocation.
Tucson is the region’s largest population center and principal tax base, yet it holds only one vote on the RTA governing board — equal to much smaller suburban jurisdictions. That imbalance affects priorities and sequencing of projects, complemented by a pattern where Tucson supplies a large share of revenue while many investments occur outside the city. Under the first RTA cycle, multiple Tucson projects were delayed or left unfinished while outer-area projects advanced. That history is part of the public record.
While on City Council, I represented the Southside and saw firsthand the depth of historic disinvestment in those neighborhoods. Another 20 years of the same regional funding model should not deliver so little, so late, to communities that have waited the longest. If equity were truly centered, we would see earlier and more concentrated investment in the most underserved areas of our region, not expansions at the edges.
Voters are also seeing heavy advertising centered on pothole repair. That message does not match the largest cost drivers in the plan, which are major corridor and regional roadway projects. Additionally, campaign finance filings show that funding supporting the measure comes from road-building firms, engineering companies, developers, utilities, and trade associations — organizations positioned to benefit from large roadway contracts.
There is also a broader truth here that if state and federal governments consistently invested in cities and counties — especially in public infrastructure and transportation — local communities would not have to rely so heavily on long-term tax measures like this one. That gap in higher-level investment has put local governments in a bind. As a candidate for the Arizona State Senate, I support stronger state partnership and overdue infrastructure investment, so our cities are not left carrying this burden alone.
If the measure fails, near-term service reductions are likely. Voters should understand that risk. But moving beyond the current RTA structure toward a Tucson-first investment strategy with proportional voice and accountability creates a stronger long-term path. That is the generational choice before us.
