Transit measure a lifeline

Aug 25, 2025
Aug 25, 2025
5

Editor,

I would like to commend our SamTrans board, local elected officials and San Mateo County for opting into the regional transit measure that will address the structural deficits faced by San Mateo County transit operators.

(5) comments

edkahl Aug 25, 2025 2:07pm

Government was never designed to run a transit company. San Mateo should hire a recognized transportation management company to review its operations. A public report on its findings should be published in Daily Journal highlighting where efficiencies could be found and cost reduced.

easygerd Aug 25, 2025 11:04am

Public transit will not cease to exist without this measure.

28 public transit agencies will just starting to merge - and that is what voters should want anyways.

Terence Y Aug 25, 2025 8:53am

Thanks for your letter, Apurva, but you imply that public transportation will cease to exist if we don’t fund them. That’s the furthest thing from the truth but it is the sympathy card transit unions and supporters are attempting to push. To no avail. These transit companies have been operating at 100% with 50% or less ridership. These transit unions are doing next to nothing in fiscally managing taxpayer money. As for fossil fuel emissions, don’t you think operating at 100% capacity all day, every day, is causing more emissions than operating at the capacity which is needed? The carbon emission footprint argument doesn’t work. I’d recommend everyone vote NO on any measures for transportation or for government in general. Most, if not all, of the money will go towards paying ever-increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits.

joebob91 Aug 25, 2025 10:28am

This is not how transit operations work. They cannot adjust an operations/schedule dial to get to 100% utilization. Even if they did, costs would not fall commensurately.

You seem to be assuming that if we adjust schedules to 50% of current levels, by reducing frequency and level of service, ridership won't change. That is not how people make decisions. If the train comes every hour instead of every half hour, many will seek out alternatives - e.g., driving, moving away from transit. (Of course, this makes utilization fall, prompting additional cuts in your scenario.).

I hope that you apply similar logic to the billions in taxpayer dollars that we are currently spending widening highways in the Bay Area. Most are only "100%" utilized for a few hours per weekday. The rest of the times/days utilization is much lower. In the process, however, we are increasing driving/congestion, worsening climate change, increasing air pollution in lower income neighborhoods adjacent to the highway, and increasing congestion/danger on local streets (which aren't widened).

Terence Y Aug 26, 2025 8:13am

Thanks for your response, joebob91, but why can’t we adjust to lower ridership? You’ve suggested we can have trains operate less frequently. Travelers will adjust and we can adjust manpower accordingly if demand ever increases. As for folks moving away from transit, that’s already happening. Evidenced by 50% ridership for how many years now? And that’s with trains operating at 100% capacity. Seems many have made decisions and found alternatives and they’ve decided the alternatives are better. It’s time for public transit to find alternatives, such as decreasing service to reflect reduced demand.

As for your logic comparison, it’s not a valid comparison. There are no “road” operators need to keep roads running at 100%. Roads are just “there.” Thus, there are no ever-increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits needed to pay for roads. And please, each time anyone uses the ineffective climate change argument, their argument is lost. Why? We have plenty of folks talking the talk but not walking the walk. There are folks taking over 400 private jets and who knows how many public jets to, of all things, attend climate conferences lecturing us on emissions while they’re spewing more carbon than many of us will ever spew in our lifetimes. And of course, China, India, undeveloped, and even developed nations continue to burn more fossil fuels.

Again, vote NO on any measures for transportation (or for government in general). Most, if not all, of the money will go towards paying ever-increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits. And of course, operating at 100% capacity with 50% or less capacity.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!