From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:12:06 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Oct13.180506.2029@ntmtv>, Adrian Brandt writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.234822.25072@leland.Stanford.EDU>, garygm@leland.Stanford
>|>    I know precious little about the details (only what was in my
>|> little election booklet), so I was hoping that someone around here
>|> might have an opinion [on measure A].  Anyone?

>Speaking as a transit advocate, I'm for Measure A.  It will redirect
>an existing 1/2 cent sales tax away from an exclusively freeway/road
>orientation to predominantly (~90%) transit-oriented funding.  So this
>means the "new" Measure A will not raise sales tax, it will merely
>continue an existing one.

I may be a transit advocate too, but I'm not sure I support transit for
transit's sake.  I mean, as much as we need better transit systems, unless we
carefully target where we spend new transit funds, we will be throwing good
money after bad money.  Color me an "efficient, cost-effective transit
advocate."

Light rail, as it currently exists, is a big boondoggle.  North of downtown
San Jose, it is essentially useless since buses can easily match the perform-
ance of it.  There are too many stops and the constant traffic lights that it
has to obey is ridiculous.  The main advantage of rail transit should be its
*independence* from heavy road traffic and traffic controls.  With all of the
stops and traffic lights, LRT on First Street is no better than a bus.  The
Tasman Corridor isn't much better in that respect, and will cost hundreds of
millions.  I guess it will at least be an alternative to 237...

>While about 10% of funds raised by the new Measure A will go toward
>freeway/road projects, the balance will fund a huge expansion of the
>Santa Clara County light rail system and a critical CalTrain upgrade.
>Also, Measure A will provide funds for Santa Clara County Transit to
>comply with the federally-mandated ADA (Americans with Disabilities
>Act).  Without Measure A's passage, it is almost certain severe service
>cuts will be required in order to comply with the ADA.

The CalTrain upgrade--more frequent runs and (especially for me) expanded
service south of Tamien is the most critical issue, in my opinion.  I still
think the light rail projects smell like pork.

>If Measure A fails, the Tasman Corridor light rail extension will be
>dealt a severe blow.  Measure A's passage is needed to secure the federal
>matching funds to build the line.   The Tasman project will extend LRT
>service to the downtown Mountain View CalTrain station via Lockheed in
>the west and extend to the vicinity of Capitol and Hostetter in the east.
>This line will link up with another Measure A project that will create
>a rail link between downtown San Jose and Fremont/Warm-Springs BART in
>Alameda County.

I'm not sure that losing the Tasman Corridof LRT project is a big loss.
And I work right in front of a proposed stop!  The express buses are still
much faster to Sunnyvale and Mountain View--though admittedly less flexible.
They could increase all 12X bus seviceockheed and add a few expresses to
Mountain Vi

>Measure A will provide funds to build several other light rail lines
>such as a line to serve the Capitol expressway corridor in east San Jose
>and connect it with downtown.  Also, lines extending west of downtown
>San Jose connecting with Campbell/Los Gatos and another going out to
>the Cupertino area via Stevens Creek Boulevard.  I believe there will
>also be funds for running a branch off the Tasman extension into
>downtown Sunnyvale (also connecting with CalTrain) and eventually
>extending it on or along the 85 corridor to meet up with the Stevens
>Creek line in Cupertino.

If light rail must be built, it should use freeway medians and only should
be built in highly residential areas to highly commercialized areas with its
own separate right of way.  Other than that, it's a waste of money.

>Measure A will provide funds to electrify CalTrain and dramatically
>increase train service both north (to SF) and south (Gilroy service) of
>San Jose.

This is crucial.

>For roads, the new Measure A will provide funds to finish some projects
>that the existing Measure A couldn't finish because of a sales tax
>revenue shortfall due to the poor economy.  Also, it will fund signal
>synchronization of all signals and installation of video cameras at key
>intersections on Santa Clara County expressways.  The video cameras will
>enable remote intersection monitoring and allow for remote manual
>traffic signal control for unusual traffic conditions/situations.  There
>are also some funds to widen the 2-lane-per-direction part of 101 between
>Morgan Hill and San Jose to 3 lanes per direction.

The narrow stretch of 101 was built in 1984, the same year that the original
Measure A was passed.  Why they didn't make that 3 lanes then is beyond me.
It is *far* more expensive to retrofit an extra lane than it would have been
to just build another lane...politicians...sheesh.

>The 90/10% transit/highway mix was somewhat of a political compromise
>and is considered to be very good from a transit funding point of view.
>There are certainly Measure A critics, but while it may not be perfect,
>I think Measure A is damn good and deserves our support.

I'll probably support it, despite the huge allocation for light rail.  The 10%
for roads is probably a political bone thrown to the people who rarely use
transit, and will probably increase its chance for passage.  For that reason,
if no other, some highway work in the measure was a good idea.

>Santa Clara County Measure A: YES     (1/2 cent sales tax for transit)

>San Mateo County   Measure B: NO (BART throughout SM County)
>San Mateo County   Measure C: YES     (upgrade and extend CalTrain)

>California   proposition 155: NO (toll road boondoggle/state subsidy)

Isn't the toll road proposal Prop 157?

>California   proposition 156: YES     (clean air and rail bond act)

Have all existing bond authorizations been used?  I won't support any bond
issues unless all authorized bonds have already been issued.
--

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


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: ba.transportation