After last week’s mini-rant about the proposed merger between BART and Caltrain (I have not yet begun to rant, to paraphrase John Paul Jones), a reader asked, heaven forbid, that I elaborate.
I said the merger would not be in San Mateo County’s interests, and the reader wanted to know why. Here you go:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the regional agency that doles out most state and federal transit money, has a poll in the field to test public appetite for a regional transportation funding measure.
One of the poll questions is whether the public would support “one integrated rail system.” Another one asks whether people would support “one regional transit agency for the Bay Area.”
Neither question addresses the cost of such proposals, as confirmed by Rebecca Long, MTC director of Legislation and Public Affairs.
This means you can expect rousing public support, and those who pushing these potentially disastrous ideas will feel they have the wind at their back.
No cost. No details. No problem.
But, in answer to the reader’s question, I am told no one at Caltrain knew the question was plunked into the poll. No one at SamTrans knew about the regional question.
And that’s what you can expect — planning that involves other people in some other place concerned with issues that benefit their own priorities. Until the measure is finalized, that is. And the campaign is underway. Then, someone undoubtedly will say it is time for the region “to join together in unity to pass this critical measure.”
The only fitting unified response is for Peninsula political leaders, including those from cities with BART stations and Caltrain stations, to stand up now — not later — and kill this pie-in-the-sky proposal.
MAYORITIS — What is it about these mayor and mayorlike positions that seems to bring out oddly cranky and often egoistic behavior among the elected class?
We have seen city after city get into quite public (and often embarrassing) fights over the “rotation” for mayor. We all know about San Mateo, but it has happened many times over in many other cities.
Recommended for you
Add to the list the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, where, as reported by the Daily Journal’s indefatigable Sierra Lopez, they got into a tiff over who gets to be president on the cordial-no-more political body.
With the exception of Belmont and San Bruno, all these mayoral positions rotate, some on a wobblier axis.
Mayor is largely an honorary title. A mayor is just one vote and needs at least two more to get anything done, no matter how many State of the City/County priority lists are announced at the start of the year. The only distinction in being mayor is that it is a year of heightened attention — feeling important, in essence. This apparently is enough to get our friendly, neighborhood electeds fighting with one another over whose turn it is.
They try to adopt policies that set a rotation in place. But they still have to vote, it still takes three votes to be elected mayor, and they have to do it in public.
They can adopt all the policies they want, and that works fine, until it does not.
THAT WAS QUICK: Speaking of San Mateo, moments after last week’s masterpiece showed up, devotees of Mayor Amourence Lee jumped on my statement that District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe had “concluded no illegal behavior had occurred” among the people who Lee had accused of improperly lobbying her during the city’s mayoral tsuris waaay back in December.
Said one correspondent, who identified only as Westy: “Wagstaffe did not conclude no illegal conduct occurred, he said there was insufficient evidence. He didn’t clear anyone, which is pretty damning considering he usually comes down squarely on the side of the moneyed peoples.”
These are the times in which we live — the absence of proof is evidence, not of innocence, but of a cover-up.
Besides being an example of a difference without a distinction, it is a model of revisionist history. Do not take my word for it. Consider this statement post-hoo-ha, from Lee: “Now, fortunately the DA investigation puts to rest any question of impropriety.”
BY THE WAY: And speaking of crankiness, it would be refreshing if the people who comment online would use their actual names. Even my regular commenters, whose thoughts I always, really, appreciate, wimp out. I put my name on the column. I would do so even if it did not come with the gig. But I am starting to feel strongly that it is time for people to stand up for what they are willing to say publicly. No more nom de l’internet.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.
(6) comments
Hey Mark Simon, if you’re out there... As reported by the SF Chronicle, what’s your opinion on BART getting $352 million, SFMTA getting $309 million, and Caltrain receiving only $25.5 million from the CA budget? Does this change your mind on merging with BART? Is BART and SFMTA’s mismanagement being rewarded while Caltrain and other agencies are penalized for running tighter ships?
It's not often that the NYTimes calls out "political dysfunction in the region" - they did so for San Mateo County politicians and Caltrain/SamTrans Leadership. And they were spot-on.
The Bay Area has some 28 Transportation Agencies with little synchronization between their schedules - of course we should merge them down to more manageable numbers (https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/). Think about all the synergies and cost savings this could provide. But right now they are run by people that see themselves as medieval lords, dukes, earls, barons and treat their customers like peasants and pheasants (e.g. SamTrans hardly has any bus shelters!).
Only someone who benefitted from this system of failure and excess would make a case against merging these agencies. And it does sound funny, when SamTrans/Caltrain people and County politicians call BART leadership incompetent - talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
To name just a few recent examples:
- $462M cost overrun at Electrification Project just after the last CEO (no real transportation background) stepped down
- time overrun by 2-4 years
- $80M for a "Experimental Train" when Amtrak is using the tried and true $8M model
- DTX for 1.3 miles will cost >$6.3M
- reduced service and often cancelled
- lack of synchronization with SamTrans buses
- ....
Thanks for another eclectic column, Mr. Simon. If I were the MTC, I’d start pushing the message that a merger between the different transportation agencies will save money by removing duplicate positions within the agency. We know that there hasn’t been an effort to rein in costs with public transportation running at 100% with only 50% of riders so why shouldn’t we want to save money by unifying transit agencies? You write below about “Mayoritis” but how is this agency merger different? Isn’t it all about power and egotism and not necessarily what’s best for constituents or taxpayers?
As for Mayor Lee’s quandary, I don’t think we’ve heard the end of it – the issue will be raised again and again, as it should, during the next voting cycle. The bigger question is whether voters will hold Lee accountable for her hijinks, whether found to be illegal or not.
As for online vs. real names, would you write something or act differently should someone use a real-sounding name vs. a nickname or nom de I’internet? I would hope not so why the crankiness? If so, are you saying you’re not willing to stand up for what you’re willing to say? Besides, we may have public education or union folks, or government aides who don’t believe in what their unions or bosses are pushing. Since they’re still gainfully employed and I’d imagine, would like to remain so, why would they expose their true selves to left-leaning bosses who would likely attempt to cancel them? Another example of power and egotism? Perhaps I’ll rename myself to “Matt Simon” so you can actually meet him (or at least someone claiming to be him) and ask why I represent the moneyed interests in the county because I fear I’m losing power. (Hat tip to Westy’s comment on your previous column.)
Good morning, Mark
I agree with your response to Ms. West. This may not be a case of insufficient evidence to link Mayor Amo's antagonists to any impropriety, but rather a lack of evidence to support any of the mayor's self-serving allegations.
As for using real names, I set this account up years ago before a subscription was required to comment and wanted a short "screen name". (I suppose I could change it but haven't tried) It is the first four letters of my first and last name though, I have had LTEs published under my full name, and anyone who cares knows who I am.
A bit different than my anonymous twitter/X account where I can get a bit more.... colorful in my comments to local politicians in particular! :)
MichKosh, I personally have little faith in any medium to keep my information private. I was asked by the SMDJ editor to reveal my name but I'm not interested in being canceled, or have my house picketed, or my son put on trial at school for my opinions or my place of employment harassed and forced to capitulate and fire me. Call me kooky
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.