Town Square

Post a New Topic

Local leaders split over transportation measure

Original post made on May 7, 2018

Few would dispute that the Bay Area urgently needs relief from traffic jams, but reasonable people are finding much to disagree about when it comes to Regional Measure 3, a proposal to raise $4.5 billion for transportation improvements by gradually raising tolls at seven Bay Area bridges.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, May 7, 2018, 11:54 AM

Comments (7)

20 people like this
Posted by jake_leone
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on May 7, 2018 at 1:29 pm

I urge voters to vote NO on this measure.

Most of the money in this toll hike goes to Bart, it doesn't help commuters.

In the very near future people will still drive cars. Well, the cars will drive them. Bart is a dinosaur looking for zoo to live in. This has been the history of commuter rail. If rider actually had to pay for Bart, they couldn't afford it.

Let's instead go with a safer, less expensive, more reliable, and effective method, and the one of choice and will continue to be used in the future.

Cars, specifically rewarding cars that are multi-occupant. Private industry is going to solve the regions mass transit problems soon, with convenient multi-occupant taxis, let's go with that.

And the cars will be nearly 100% safe, because automation is going to solve the traffic problem.

This huge, regressive tax on commuters, many of whom have long commutes because they simply aren't making enough to afford 3k/month rent or 2 million dollars homes, is the most heartless measure I have every seen or heard. It was created by dinosaurs to feed fat-cats.

Again, let's instead fund and encourage the transportation plan of the future, which is going to be the self-driving commuter car, by not taxing the poor to pay for the retirement plans of government fat-cats.


32 people like this
Posted by Hugh Jardonn
a resident of another community
on May 8, 2018 at 10:49 am

I'll be voting "no" on this one. I remember how MTC wasted toll money to build a new Taj Mahal headquarters in San Francisco when the one they had in Oakland was perfectly good. Why reward this behavior with more of our hard-earned cash?


3 people like this
Posted by Guy Fawkes
a resident of another community
on May 8, 2018 at 12:26 pm

Any time you put anything on the ballot that involves a tax or fee or bond there are always going to be SOMEBODY who will vote no. Some people vote no because they vote no on anything with a dollar sign that is on the ballot. Some people vote no because they don't like this project or that project. Some people vote no because they think somebody else should pay for it, etc. I'm voting yes on RM3 not because its perfect, its not. Not because I agree with everything thats in the proposal, I don't. I'm voting for RM3 because I don't believe that you should let the perfect be the enemy of the good and I think RM3 overall will help with the Bay Areas transportation problems.


20 people like this
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of another community
on May 8, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Remember: Regional Measure 2 (RM2) listed Dumbarton Rail as a priority project. How much funding did the MTC actually apply to Dumbarton Rail??? ZERO. Zero dollars.

I'm very pro-public transit and support tax dollars being spent on public transit, even including extra taxation (one of the few areas I agree to extra taxation, despite our already high taxes).

The problem is that the MTC has a history of lying to peninsula communities: they claim to support transit projects that help us, but the reality is that we get at best scraps. BART, SF and SJ own the MTC, and there is NO CHANCE we'll see any improvement in our gridlock using RM3 funds: that money is all going to SF, SJ and BART.

Anyone that lives in or commutes to the peninsula should easily vote NO on RM 3. RM3 has no guarantees in it that enforce funding peninsula transit projects, and given the MTCs history its doubtful even a cent of RM3 will make it our way.

VOTE NO on Measure 3.


3 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 8, 2018 at 6:12 pm

Two things - inflation will take $5 to $6 by 2025, so this is in effect a $2 increase. Second, moving around this region will be far smoother if we have better transit in place and RM-3 helps fund that. And those important projects will create and sustain jobs by people in middle and working class families. Thinking that we can accommodate everyone in personal vehicles is a pipe dream for an already congested region that is attracting more jobs and more residents.


Like this comment
Posted by Kristina
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 8, 2018 at 7:26 pm

It's pretty rich that Simitian has the nerve to say "They certainly don't have the option to move here given what our rents and mortgages are, and transit options are still limited and imperfect at best" when Mountain View is a prime example of peninsula cities that only allow commercial real estate, no housing. Where the hell does he expect housing to be built? King of NIMBYs.


Like this comment
Posted by Jeffrey Tong
a resident of another community
on May 11, 2018 at 8:23 am

I agree with UCLA Professor Donald Shoup that the US traffic congestion problem is largely a parking problem - SUBURBAN SPRAWL! Web Link

Unless we tackle the ROOT of the problem, we are merely flushing our money down the toilet. Therefore, my reason for REJECTING all current transportation TAX measures is outlined below:

Web Link


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Hotel restaurant to open in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,827 views

A Concrete Joy: The Life and Love of Charlie Foley-Hughes
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,231 views

Climate Friendly Cuisine Conference
By Laura Stec | 18 comments | 1,000 views

Couples: Wanting, Yet Missing One Another
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 704 views