Cloudy skies early, then partly cloudy this afternoon. Expect mist and reduced visibilities at times. High 64F. Winds WNW at 10 to 20 mph..
Mainly cloudy. Expect mist and reduced visibilities at times. Low 51F. Winds W at 10 to 15 mph.
Updated: October 30, 2025 @ 7:35 am
An electric Caltrain is seen at the San Mateo station.
After a transit ballot measure failed to garner enough support earlier this year, regional leaders are going back to the drawing board to develop other ways to help narrow some of the largest transit agencies’ fiscal cliffs.
Leaders from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional financing agency, are eyeing several possibilities for shoring up funding gaps.
Among the options was a transit measure that, if approved, would generate $540 million annually for 30 years, to be distributed among four Bay Area counties, including San Mateo — although other counties would have the ability to opt in. About $109 million each year would be earmarked for the county, funded by a half-cent sales tax. It would also focus on the “largest operators in terms of ridership that are facing budget operating shortfalls, namely AC Transit, BART, Caltrain and SF Muni,” according to the MTC report.
The second alternative listed would be a more robust $1.5 billion bond measure with all nine Bay Area counties participating, funded by either a parcel or payroll tax. It is also heavily favored by several transit advocates, as well as state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who, along with state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, paused an effort for another transit-focused ballot measure a couple months ago. One advocate from Voices for Public Transportation, a supporter of the second option, said the progressive nature of the tax is critical for long-term investment and that “relying on a sales tax alone would be a nonstarter with voters.”
David Canepa, MTC Commissioner and San Mateo County supervisor, said he was also supportive of the second option, stating that these types of efforts should include the entire region, not just a select few.
Stemming the fiscal bleeding for some of the major transit operators has been a longtime topic of concern, especially as several, such as Caltrain and BART, are still struggling to recover ridership from pre-pandemic levels. The former is facing a $100 million annual deficit starting in 2033, while the latter is looking at a $300 million shortfall in just a couple years. While several counties have sales tax measures in place to fund their transit services, the revenue still hasn’t covered all the funding gaps, and several, including in San Mateo, will expire in less than a decade.
The options received mixed feedback from commissioners and committee members, with some cautioning against a payroll tax, and others, such as Gina Papan, MTC commissioner and Millbrae councilmember, saying there needs to be more transparency and accountability for some of the largest operators. Papan, who has long criticized BART’s management — even suggesting to get rid of its Board of Directors during the Aug. 26 meeting — said the public and regional leaders need to feel like a sound operating plan is in place before they feel comfortable supporting it.
“I don’t think the public or the Legislature is going to be excited about any type of measure, however we present it, unless they know that there is a built-in plan for each of these operators, that they’re going to have more accountability, and the public can see the results,” Papan said. “I’m not seeing that here.”
The commission will discuss the item again in September.
Note to readers: This story was changed to correct a wrong number. One option for the transportation measure would raise $540 million annually.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Murder for Two Read moreMurder For Two
Dirk van Ulden said:
Rick Bonilla said:
Hey Terry, I thought your favorite smaller government. What’s up with this? You are starting to sound like a Democrat.
Rick Bonilla said:
Dirk van Ulden said:
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(5) comments
Nothing is more subsidized than driving a private car. period. Public Transportation is absolutely cheap compared to that. Of course it also needs to be well managed - and that is where the problems show up.
The "Fiscal Cliff" is a completely made up crisis. Public Transportation in the Bay Area is not underfunded, it is however extremely mismanaged by elected officials.
BART has all kinds of financial mismanagement as a current board member eluded to in a recent Mercury article. There were also all kinds of problems how BART bullied and attacked the Inspector General in charge of fraud, waste and abuse at the agency.
The Caltrain Board with Rico E. Medina just exceeded the whole Electrification thing by $330M, maybe $450M (depending on who you ask). Caltrain also mismanaged the Dumbarton Corridor.
The SamTrans Board with Rico E. Medina and David Canepa just bought themselves a new HQ and kept the old one. SamTrans is also wasting $5M on yet another "Dumbarton Corridor Study" - a project NYT named "local political dysfunction".
SMC TA with Rico E. Medina, David Canepa, Diane Papan, Gina Papan just wasted $600M on a highway-widening to promote more car trips, more air pollution, more childhood asthma.
So basically Rico E. Medina, David Canepa, Diane Papan, Gina Papan and various friends are attacking Caltrains and Samtrans' ridership through 101, Ferry Service, HOV lanes for private shuttles, reduction of service, etc. and then turn around and asking for a handout.
One thing is clear, car centric people like David Canepa or Rico E. Medina should not be in charge of public transportation - that opens the door for all kinds of mismanagement and conflict of interests.
Mass transit is an emotional idea which certainly helps the minority. But it doesn't mean that when a money losing empty hole keeps bleeding billions of dollars that "we the people" should prop it up with more money, that end up in the hands of our greedy unions. Cut back on services, fewer trains, busses, etc.. and then cut costs by cutting salaries, healthcare benefits and pensions. And in the end if it can't pay for itself then do away with it.
Democrats should redo the primary. Out of respect and proper protocol many waited this election out on the side line. Khamala would not win a primary which is why there wasn't one. If she could not be Joe in 2020 how will she beat Donald in 2024?
Why not place fees on ride sharing and those lovely mag-7 commuter buses (who take away drivers from public transit buses)? Then make sure all the companies along the transit corridor are purchasing their transit passes (have been able to opt out do to Covid). Then evaluate the need for additional funding. Bonds should never pay for operations. Budgets should take into account all operating and capital costs before compensation packages are increased.
Folks, don’t fall for it. Just vote NO on this potential end run attempt and NO on any and all measures looking to shore up transportation. We all know that the previous measure that failed will be resurrected in the near future, and that will be on top of this measure. If you fall for their sob story and vote YES you’ll be potentially be paying more for union salaries and their ever increasing pensions and benefits, TWICE. Note that in all this time, public transit has not lessened their capacity to reflect ridership. For instance, when ridership is at 50%, they’re still operating at 100%, or close to it. Vote NO.
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.