I am one of the nearly 100,000 drivers who cross the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge every day. Been doing it for more than 20 years. Since May of 2001, I figure I’ve paid close to $40,000 in tolls. During that time, I’ve been asked to pay more and more for things that never come to pass.
First, the raises were to pay for road improvements. I’ve seen very little of that on my commute. There was a small patch on my drive, no more than 50 feet, a teeth-rattling, pot-hole marred slab of asphalt. It got progressively worse over 15 years. A couple years ago, I noticed it had finally been repaved. I nearly cried.
Now, I’m being asked to pay to fix the mess that is Bay Area Rapid Transit. Never mind the fact that I haven’t used BART in years or the fact the transit agency continues to seemingly waste what money it has. To that end, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, authored Senate Bill 532, with state Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo, as one of the co-authors, that will “temporarily” raise the tolls an extra $1.50 on the seven state-owned bridges as a fundraiser for BART and other transit agencies.
If BART doesn’t have the money, then cut services. That’s what happens in the real world to a business that struggles. A normal business does not have the luxury to wait for a government handout to keep their doors open.
Throwing good money after bad is no way to fix any issue.
If passed, the increase would begin Jan. 1 — this on top of the $3 raise voters approved in 2018. By 2025, it could cost $9.50 to cross bridges in the Bay Area — unless you’re going westbound on the Bay Bridge during morning commute hours, then the toll will be $10.50.
What Sacramento fails to realize is that they are nickel-and-diming to death everyday, hard-working people, all in the name of progress. People who have been gouged by ever-increasing gas prices, gouged by the housing market, gouged by the grocery stores and now being gouged, once again, by politicians.
Sure, in a perfect world, everyone lives near their jobs and they can walk or ride their bikes to work, whistling the whole way.
Recommended for you
That’s not reality. The reality is, many politicians are unrealistic idealists who have no qualms about adding to the monetary woes many people are already enduring.
As sports editor for the San Mateo Daily Journal, I don’t have the ability to work from home even half the time, although I am able to do so on occasion. But 80% of the time I am in the office.
Using public transportation is not a viable option because half of my job entails me driving to the office and then driving to and from an event, four to five days a week. The biggest drawback is the sheer inconvenience of using it and the time restraints.
In a deadline business, that simply doesn’t fly. And from a monetary standpoint, it’s a non-starter.
Meanwhile a member of the BART Board of Directors crows on social media about SB 532 passing committee and in another post pimps BART’s new “ugly sweater” design for the holiday season.
Is this where my extra $1.50 is going to go?
My hope is the rest of the politicians who will ultimately decide this bill remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people who will be forced to dig even deeper to pay for a service they don’t — or can’t — even use.
If there is no transit, the only choice is to drive - do you want to sit in traffic with even more people? Transit reduces traffic congestion, which benefits drivers.
Again with the conflation of increased tolls meaning the end of public transit… I don’t believe anyone is calling for the end of public transit, just that public transit find their own way to pay for their services. If they can’t swim, let them sink. All private entities would go belly up if they operated the way public transit is run.
Highways are expensive propositions, to the tune of $20 billion in state funding in the 2022-3 CA budget. Highways are more heavily subsidized than transit - if people can pay to take the bus, it's only fair that they also pay a toll to drive on a road. Make the highways pay for themselves!
Highways are expensive propositions, which is why there’s a gas tax added to every gallon of fuel purchased by those who use the highways. Seems the highways do pay for themselves, by those who use them. What a novel idea. Now why can’t we do the same for public transportation?
Highways are not paid for by gas tax - the gas tax does not raise nearly the $20 billion spent last year. "In 2022-23, the state gasoline excise tax is set at 53.9 cents per gallon, and the tax is expected to raise $7.4 billion from gasoline purchases for vehicles using public roads." https://lao.ca.gov/Transportation/FAQs
$13 billion dollars sunk into highways, while the state only pays for 14% of transit costs ($1.7 billion, same link source).
Once again - highways are heavily subsidized. Public transit deserves an equal footing.
kilendra, thanks for the link. When I review the chart, I see the funding is for transit, not transportation. Your cited chart is applicable to (paraphrased from your link) bus, rail, paratransit, vanpool, and ferries, and other mass transportation services, such as intercity rail and commercial aviation (end of paraphrasing). And not to highway funding. Your cited chart bolsters my argument that transit is highly subsidized, taking money from fuel taxes and other sources, while being unable to fully support their transit activities.
For another viewpoint, if we go to the transportation section (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4628), you’ll see that the budget (actual) for transportation in 2020-2021 was over $22 billion, with almost $17 billion from special funds such as various fuel taxes and vehicle-related fees, implying that gas taxes are being fully used for vehicle-related activities (although gas tax revenue has been siphoned away to other non-revenue pet projects like the train to nowhere, road diets, and the aforementioned transit services), showing highways are not heavily subsidized, if at all. Why can’t we do the same for transit? Why is BART asking for $6 billion, potentially taking more money from highway funds or increased vehicle registration fees? Let public transit sink or swim on their merits and their revenue sources. If they can’t, then reduce services on par with their revenue.
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!
(6) comments
If there is no transit, the only choice is to drive - do you want to sit in traffic with even more people? Transit reduces traffic congestion, which benefits drivers.
Again with the conflation of increased tolls meaning the end of public transit… I don’t believe anyone is calling for the end of public transit, just that public transit find their own way to pay for their services. If they can’t swim, let them sink. All private entities would go belly up if they operated the way public transit is run.
Highways are expensive propositions, to the tune of $20 billion in state funding in the 2022-3 CA budget. Highways are more heavily subsidized than transit - if people can pay to take the bus, it's only fair that they also pay a toll to drive on a road. Make the highways pay for themselves!
Highways are expensive propositions, which is why there’s a gas tax added to every gallon of fuel purchased by those who use the highways. Seems the highways do pay for themselves, by those who use them. What a novel idea. Now why can’t we do the same for public transportation?
Highways are not paid for by gas tax - the gas tax does not raise nearly the $20 billion spent last year. "In 2022-23, the state gasoline excise tax is set at 53.9 cents per gallon, and the tax is expected to raise $7.4 billion from gasoline purchases for vehicles using public roads." https://lao.ca.gov/Transportation/FAQs
$13 billion dollars sunk into highways, while the state only pays for 14% of transit costs ($1.7 billion, same link source).
Once again - highways are heavily subsidized. Public transit deserves an equal footing.
kilendra, thanks for the link. When I review the chart, I see the funding is for transit, not transportation. Your cited chart is applicable to (paraphrased from your link) bus, rail, paratransit, vanpool, and ferries, and other mass transportation services, such as intercity rail and commercial aviation (end of paraphrasing). And not to highway funding. Your cited chart bolsters my argument that transit is highly subsidized, taking money from fuel taxes and other sources, while being unable to fully support their transit activities.
For another viewpoint, if we go to the transportation section (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4628), you’ll see that the budget (actual) for transportation in 2020-2021 was over $22 billion, with almost $17 billion from special funds such as various fuel taxes and vehicle-related fees, implying that gas taxes are being fully used for vehicle-related activities (although gas tax revenue has been siphoned away to other non-revenue pet projects like the train to nowhere, road diets, and the aforementioned transit services), showing highways are not heavily subsidized, if at all. Why can’t we do the same for transit? Why is BART asking for $6 billion, potentially taking more money from highway funds or increased vehicle registration fees? Let public transit sink or swim on their merits and their revenue sources. If they can’t, then reduce services on par with their revenue.
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.