From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Failure of Proposition 156
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:36:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.223841.22457@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov18.182041.1287@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> 
|> >passenger rail service on the Bay Area-Santa Rosa-Eureka corridor
|> 
|> How did that go?

In light of prop 156's failure (it had money for this corridor), the
chances of implementing any of the corridor improvements identified
in the most recent CalTrans Division of Rail study are diminished for
the near future...  The study concluded that tourist-oriented service
between Wilits and Eureka could operate at a *profit* and that an
inter-city travel oriented service between a Marin County ferry
terminal and Wilits via Santa Rosa would just barely get up to the
state-mandated 55% farebox for state-subsidized inter-city services.
By blending the northern tourist-oriented service with the southern
inter-city-oriented service for financial purposes the corridor could
still make the 55% cost-recovery.  By making capital upgrades to up
speeds and by cost-sharing with Santa Rosa - Marin commuter rail
service the corridor could become quite successful.  But, alas, with
156's failure, we might have to wait awhile before any of this gets
moving.  Also, Marin county is a big problem for staring rail service
in this corridor.  Aparently certain vocal factions of Marin (including
"environmentalists") are opposed to rail service.  They are afraid it
will spur development and cut into the Marin image/mystique/cache (or
whatever it is).  Instead, some rail opponents seem to think that if
only 101 was widened then commuters would just zoom though Marin so
fast they won't stop and settle there!  (Or some such pipe dream.)


|> 	[On a Central Valley TGV line...]
|> 
|> >The best plan according to the IURD CalSpeed alignment study is to
|> >construct an entirely new right of way that would pass somewhat to
|> >the east of Fresno and Bakersfield.
|> 
|> 	East? Why east instead of west? West would mean shorter LA and
|> Bay Area connections. Or is this a typo?

Yes, sorry, it's a typo.  I meant to write "somewhat to the west of
Fresno and Bakersfield".                                    


|> > According the the study, the whole [SF-LA TGV trunk line project]
|> > will cost $9 billion.
|> 
|> The next question is, of course, how to raise the money


TRAC and PCL are already plotting/scheming ways to do this.  This was
also talked about at the conference.  Nothing definite is planned yet,
but it'll could be with a *sales* tax on gas sold in California.  Sales
taxes are "better" than per-gallon taxes because they "go on top of"
the price of the gas and all other state and federal taxes.  Also, a
sales tax will bring in more revenue than a per-gallon tax as the price
of gas rises and allows you to track inflation somewhat (at least to
the degree that the price of gas tracks inflation).  This would have to
go to be put on the ballot, and ideally within the next few years.

Another possibility is to finance a large part with private investor's
money--like in the Texas TGV project.


|> 	The Texas TGV is the only model so far, and even that is a
|> long way off from its intended total of $8 billion or so. I wonder how
|> it's doing so far.

According to the TGV experts at the TRAC conference, it's tough going, but
it's still going, and they now expect it to be operational around 1999-2000.
They've been having lots of trouble with Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines
and also having to break new ground with the Federal Railroad Adminstration
and other regulatory bodies has slowed them a bit.  They didn't mention that
they were having "money problems" though.


|> But if Clinton lives up to his campaign promises, things _might_ be
|> a little easier.

I certainly hope so!  Things for rail and transit in general were damn
tough under Bush, no doubt about it.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov