Rain. High 56F. Winds SSE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 100%. Rainfall around a half an inch..
Tonight
A steady rain this evening. Showers continuing overnight. Potential for heavy rainfall. Low 51F. Winds ESE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 90%. Rainfall near a quarter of an inch.
A regional transit measure, which aims to help dig Caltrain and BART out of their structural deficits, is gaining momentum, with Senate Bill 63 advancing to the Appropriations Committee soon, and the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee passing a resolution in support of the potential ballot measure.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, introduced SB 63 in March, which would put a sales tax revenue measure on the 2026 ballot to help fund some of the major transit agencies throughout the Bay Area. And now, the county will have to decide whether it wants to opt into the measure.
Some of San Mateo County’s elected officials voiced their concern over the regional transit measure, in part because it could impede their efforts to renew Measure A, a county-specific half-cent sales tax that goes toward transportation-related projects and agencies. But on its own, Measure A is not likely to dig Caltrain out of its structural deficit, which is expected to be $600 million over the next 10 years. By July 2026, the average annual deficit will be at least $75 million, according to January estimates.
Recently, the Central Committee passed a resolution in support of a measure, stating in a press release that by “standing in solidarity with regional efforts and urging proactive collaboration with state legislators, the Committee makes clear that the county’s future depends on transit that works for all.”
James Coleman, District 1 Central Committee member and South San Francisco councilmember, said he hopes to include Measure A renewal and the regional transit measure on the same ballot measure. Even if it fails, the county has until 2032 to re-authorize Measure A.
The county’s transit leaders have frequently been skeptical of transit measures that would substantially close BART’s deficit, citing poor operational management and use of funds. While there isn’t language in the bill that would change BART’s leadership structure, Coleman said the county is not in a position to make demands of BART without paying into the system more and having board representation. Currently, BART’s board consists of officials from San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Costa counties. And while San Mateo County contributes some funds to the system, it’s a fraction of what the participating counties contribute.
“Some [county officials] want to fund Caltrain, but they don’t think BART is as important to the county, but there are twice as many BART riders in the county as Caltrain,” Coleman said. “If you want to expect the best service out of BART, then we should be paying into it and then we can demand what we deserve.”
Recommended for you
Regardless of the future of BART leadership, he said he would be supportive of the measure including language that includes audits and accountability for all agencies that receive the funding.
David Canepa, commissioner of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, said he doesn’t think the issue is necessarily with the lack of county representation but the structure of the board itself.
“The issue we have in San Mateo County relative to BART is that it only goes up to Millbrae and the airport, so if you live in other parts of county, you are probably more in touch with Caltrain, so lot of it has to do with geography, where people are located.” Canepa said. “I think the BART board should be resized and probably shouldn’t have elected officials. It should probably have folks with a background in transportation, maybe with a community representative, but I think the issue is that there are folks who may not have the expertise.”
Canepa also said the measure has already made substantial progress since the initial conversations.
“What’s interesting to me is how far off we were earlier in the process. Many people were not supportive,” Canepa. “Now to see the conversation from county elected officials saying that now they’re open to being a part of the measure, as the president of the Board of Supervisors, that’s really encouraging.”
My understanding is there are three 1/2cent sales taxes in San Mateo County, Measures A & W for transportation and Measure K to support county services and maintain or replace critical facilities. Bridge tolls have increased and now we have toll lanes. Ridership on public transportation is down and fares do not cover operating costs. What happens if Federal funding for transportation is slashed? Can we scrap high-speed rail in favor of local transportation costs? What about replacement costs? What steps are being taken to reduce operational costs? Lot of questions.
"The county’s transit leaders have frequently been skeptical of transit measures that would substantially close BART’s deficit, citing poor operational management and use of funds. While there isn’t language in the bill that would change BART’s leadership structure, Coleman said the county is not in a position to make demands of BART without paying into the system more and having board representation. "
BART isn't the only agency with 'poor operational management'.
The county already has board representation at MTC (Canepa, Papan), which doesn't help.
The county already has board representation at Caltrain (Canepa, Medina, Gee), which has been called 'local political dysfunction' by NYT
The county already has board representation at SamTrans (Canepa, Medina, Gee, Speier), which keeps 'reimagining' itself for the worse.
The county already has board representation at SMCTA (Medina, Speier), which could just take funding for car-centric nonsense like HOV lanes, I92 or I84 intersection and improve public transit instead.
The real problem still is 'poor operational management' by all San Mateo Democrats on all San Mateo boards. And a few names seems to be popping up on all these mismanaged boards.
Folks, don’t be fooled. What’s not noted in this headline is that only the folks who want to raise your taxes, in whatever way possible, are the ones pushing for this regional transit measure. A measure where most, if not all, the money will go towards paying ever increasing wages, pensions, and benefits. Notice there is never any momentum or much discussion on lowering costs or reducing schedules from 100% to 50% or so, to reflect ridership numbers. Vote NO on any measure until these folks show fiscal management of our taxpayer monies. I’d vote to establish/pay for a DOGE transportation team. But I’d bet we could find a few folks to work for free.
Yes absolutely this Terence. And notice how they talk about "renewing" the Measure A sales tax increase. That's how these things always go, when we are voting on such a measure the argument is: "It's just a TEMPORARY tax increase!" Then when it is set to expire the tax-lovers can say "But this DOESN"T RAISE YOUR TAXES AT ALL!" in arguing to renew it.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
My understanding is there are three 1/2cent sales taxes in San Mateo County, Measures A & W for transportation and Measure K to support county services and maintain or replace critical facilities. Bridge tolls have increased and now we have toll lanes. Ridership on public transportation is down and fares do not cover operating costs. What happens if Federal funding for transportation is slashed? Can we scrap high-speed rail in favor of local transportation costs? What about replacement costs? What steps are being taken to reduce operational costs? Lot of questions.
"The county’s transit leaders have frequently been skeptical of transit measures that would substantially close BART’s deficit, citing poor operational management and use of funds. While there isn’t language in the bill that would change BART’s leadership structure, Coleman said the county is not in a position to make demands of BART without paying into the system more and having board representation. "
BART isn't the only agency with 'poor operational management'.
The county already has board representation at MTC (Canepa, Papan), which doesn't help.
The county already has board representation at Caltrain (Canepa, Medina, Gee), which has been called 'local political dysfunction' by NYT
The county already has board representation at SamTrans (Canepa, Medina, Gee, Speier), which keeps 'reimagining' itself for the worse.
The county already has board representation at SMCTA (Medina, Speier), which could just take funding for car-centric nonsense like HOV lanes, I92 or I84 intersection and improve public transit instead.
The real problem still is 'poor operational management' by all San Mateo Democrats on all San Mateo boards. And a few names seems to be popping up on all these mismanaged boards.
Folks, don’t be fooled. What’s not noted in this headline is that only the folks who want to raise your taxes, in whatever way possible, are the ones pushing for this regional transit measure. A measure where most, if not all, the money will go towards paying ever increasing wages, pensions, and benefits. Notice there is never any momentum or much discussion on lowering costs or reducing schedules from 100% to 50% or so, to reflect ridership numbers. Vote NO on any measure until these folks show fiscal management of our taxpayer monies. I’d vote to establish/pay for a DOGE transportation team. But I’d bet we could find a few folks to work for free.
Yes absolutely this Terence. And notice how they talk about "renewing" the Measure A sales tax increase. That's how these things always go, when we are voting on such a measure the argument is: "It's just a TEMPORARY tax increase!" Then when it is set to expire the tax-lovers can say "But this DOESN"T RAISE YOUR TAXES AT ALL!" in arguing to renew it.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.