From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Hirsch)
Subject: Why SC Measure A is good
Organization: Peninsula Rail 2000
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:26:03 GMT


Alan Hirsch can't post, but here's his response to Bill Michel's
piece on what is wrong with Santa Clara County Measure A:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes, some of the points Bill Michel makes are good--the measure is
not perfect, but it is so much better than anything we could have
hoped for, with 88% transit funding--50% more than any other county
in the state.

Bill Michel was part of a citizens transit coalition formed in Dec
1991 to comment on the sales tax plan.  We wrote a letter asking
that no more than 20% of all money in the plan be spent on highways.
Why, suddenly, is 12% not good enough!?

Yes, the plan was put together via politics--but that is the way
things happen in this county--and the democratic political process,
rough and tumble as it is, did come up with a pretty good plan.  I
was in there slugging and criticizing the T-2010 process, and made a
dramatic impact in priority shifting of the funding of CalTrain.
The plan reflected the needs of the various coalitions and
constituencies who's support is needed to get approval of a tax.
This is the essence of interest group liberalism and democracy.  

I would be interested to hear how else this priority setting could
be have been done other than the T2010 process that involved cities,
city staffs, SC Co. Board, SCCo. Transportation Commission, public
hearings and meetings over a 18 month period.

Bill's comments are all about process, not about specific projects.
Other than on highways, his are philosophical criticisms.  They're
rather academic arguments about what would be the ideal solution and
methods of getting things done.  People in the real world who want
to get things done are willing to settle for the very good solution
instead of waiting around for the perfect solution Mr. Michel seems
to want. 

For example--he criticizes the plan because it only adds 5% more
transit trips over the next 20 years.  I would be interested to see
another plan that 1) can make a more dramatic change in the life-
styles and habits of local residents to add more transit trips, 2)
would still be attractive enough to sell to the voters to fund with
a tax, and 3) would also be appealing enough to specific
constituencies so that they would support it, and not oppose it.  

I am sure there is one--but why doesn't he propose it--and why didn't
he do so as part of the T2010 plan--and start building the
constituencies to support it. 

Mr. Michel wants to raise the gas tax instead of sales taxes for funds.
I agree.  That is the right tax to fund transit.  However to get the
same revenue as a half cent sales tax, you would need a 19-cent gas
tax--and 85% of the people oppose this, where only 30% oppose a sales
tax for transit.  Do we wait around until people change their mind,
or do we get better transit now? 
  
Where can we raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to
educate the public why a gas tax is better than a sales tax?

Academic arguments are nice, but we need to improve our transportation
system now by building more transit now.  SCCo's measure A is the
best, most heavily transit-oriented transit plan and funding measure
to come out of any county in the state.  
 
-Alan Hirsch

Newsgroups: ba.transportation