Bay Area disconnect

Apparently, to spur things along, the people who run BART decided it would be, um, smart politics, to issue what is being called its “doomsday” scenario of the cuts that will have to take place if this measure fails.

This would include, in Phase One, closing the 10 lowest-ridership stations in the system, which would include San Bruno and South San Francisco.

That BART has done little to build ridership at these stations and could be accused of undermining this part of the system is an issue to be resolutely ignored, it would seem. Anyway, BART has a total of 50 stations and stops; Phase One cuts 20%, and of the 10 stations being closed, 20% are in San Mateo County.

In Phase Two, five more stations would be cut, and two of them are in San Mateo County — Colma and Millbrae.

This last one has that distinctive BART brand of illogic.

Millbrae is supposed to be BART’s Peninsula centerpiece — a full-fledged multimodal station that brings together BART, Caltrain and SamTrans, as well as access to San Francisco International Airport.

It took considerable effort to get this thing put together, and Millbrae has responded with some significant transit-oriented development around the stations, which is exactly what they should have done. Indeed, SamTrans and Caltrain are about to move their headquarters to the Millbrae station.

BART came down the Peninsula because it wanted access to SFO, but the service always has been treated like an unwanted ragamuffin. It is as if BART is using this crisis to get rid of service it never wanted to provide, a fact I suspect is being replicated in the cuts in other parts of the system.

As at least one transit insider noted, scaring the crap out of people is no way to sell a tax increase. Maybe they should be talking about how essential the service is, rather than offering up a list of things they can do without.

It is telling that the list of endorsements on the Connect Bay Area website lists only one high-profile representative from San Mateo County — state Sen. Josh Becker, who is joined by another half-dozen city councilmembers. Others have supported the proposal through the various transit boards on which they serve, but the most influential electeds from this area appear to be staying out of it for now.

ı This latest proposal points up, once again, how the county struggles to be heard at a regional level. An answer — more of a notion, really — is that there ought to be a mayor of the county, who could be a presence at the regional level on a par with the mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland.

Interestingly, such a proposal was made to the recently organized county Charter Review Committee. The person selected to be president of the Board of Supervisors also would carry the title of mayor.

This would be the wrong way to do it. Right now, the board president serves in that role for one year. Rotating the job would seem to add little cachet or clout. Also, the person would be elected only by the five-member board. And it would tick off almost every other mayor in the county, of which there are 20.

The right way to do it would be to elect someone countywide. That would confer real authority to speak on behalf of, you know, the voters, not the five supervisors.

The discussion may be moot. Twice, the Charter Review Committee has declined to move forward on this, despite the dogged efforts of Supervisor Ray Mueller.

ASSESSOR’S RACE: Supervisor David Canepa is telling folks he raised $100,000 in the month since he announced he is running for county Assessor-Clerk-Recorder (which includes elections chief), and that he has rounded up 70 endorsements from local elected officials. As of yesterday, Jim Irizarry, longtime assistant to retiring Assessor, etc., Mark Church, has yet to form a campaign committee. There are rumors, however, of an independent expenditure committee being formed on Irizarry’s behalf, or more precisely, against Canepa.

We will see how far animus can carry a campaign.