From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Measure A Rebuttal Rebuttal
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:57:43 GMT
Reply-To: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work

Responding to Alan Hirsch's rebuttal to my 
anti-measure A arguments:

First of all, Alan, what's with this "Mr. Michel" stuff...you
know me, and I know you, and I have no problem with
everybody knowing that...besides,
this ain't the Congress you know! :-)

Alan, you say that some of my points are good. What I want to know
is why doesn't you (and Measure A proponents) respond to them
point for point, instead of complaining about their academic 
nature, and complaining that I haven't been involved enough
in the process. You respond to my criticism of the road
projects, and to the criticism of the measure's formulation
(I use the word "respond" in a relatively loose sense, since
you mainly dismiss my concerns as invalid or inconsequential).

Just one question, Alan, would you be promoting this measure
so strongly if it *didn't* include funding for CalTrain?

Yes, I *do* voice serious concerns about process, like where
is the timeline for the completion of these projects? Why
are there plans in the works to bond the road projects, and
what will happen to the transit projects if sales tax
revenues don't meet projections (given that they seem to
be taking second place to the completion of the road projects).

Given cutbacks by Santa Clara County Transit, fare hikes 
at Muni and AC Transit (despite high ridership figures for
the latter two systems), what makes you so sure that merely 
*building* these systems will entice people to get out 
of their cars?

What about the growth triggering, trip/pollution-generating
effects of the road projects? What about the competition
that these road projects provide, and how will it affect
ridership of these new systems?

Then there's Your question, "well if you don't like it, 
where's *your* plan?" This is a cynical question designed
to reduce my credibility by attacking my credentials 
as a Civil Engineer. Obviously, since I'm not a CE, this
attack is frivolous. What I'm asking for is that the
transportation plans we develop in this County have 
significant guidance from transportation professionals. 
For example, you put out a request for proposal to develop
a transportation plan. Transportation professionals, and
consulting firms bid on those plans, government reviews the bids,
and the track records of the bidding engineers/firms and
hires the one(s) that seem(s) most promising. You don't get
together a bunch of local politicians and try to decide
who's gonna get to bring home the transit(pork) to their
constituents, and label the outcome a transit plan.
And, of course, you involve the citizenry and *pay
attention* to what they have to say.

> 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.

What priority setting? I'm not aware of any *priorities* in Measure A,
just a list of projects.

> 
> Bill's comments are all about process, not about specific projects.

That's because measure A provides *so few* specifics to criticize.
Again, prioritization, and scheduling concerns here.

> 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. 
> 
I'm not waiting for a *perfect* solution, just a program with
fewer glaring flaws.

> 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.  
>
Given the media campaign being waged by the manufacturer's group,
I'm not sure this would be a problem. If they can sell this
white elephant, I'm convinced they can sell just about anything.

> 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. 
> 
Oh, so now you're saying I wasn't involved in T2010? Give me
a break. The Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Assn. (sic) was at
many of the same meetings you attended.

> 
> 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

According to the figures that the Manufacturer's group gathered in their
polling the percentages on sales tax were closer to 54? % against, 
46% for.

This is where the question of political leadership comes in.
The County Manufacturers Group, the Bay Area Economic Forum, the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, have *all* indicated
that "Market Based Measures" are some of the *most* effective.

Someone's got to take the lead on this. Selling it would be
easier if it was part of a general tax-reform plan, say one
that decreased property tax, and increased gas tax simlutaneously.

If this tax measure goes through, the idea of a gas tax 
can be safely ignored for 20 more years; besides how will
people react to any gas tax proposal which would be proposed
*on top* of a half-cent sales tax.

The other key point that is being ignored, is that people, on
average, pay more in sales tax than they do on gas tax.

> tax for transit.  Do we wait around until people change their mind,
> or do we get better transit now? 
>   
We *could* get better transit now without having to swallow these
road projects (which will compete with transit, and possibly put
it out of business, and at the very least, hamstring it). 
The fact that there is so *little* oversight
in the proposed measure means that the agency that administers
these funds is just as free to muck up these projects as they
did with the original measure A (why aren't those road projects
finished?).

> 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.  

I wouldn't call my concerns that there is not 
enough specificity in the measure, not enough oversight,
and too much money for too long a period for politicians
to play with, academic arguments. I'd say that these are
serious questions that every voter needs to ask him/herself.

We're talking about a *lot* of money here. There are
some good programs in the measure (CalTrain upgrade)
and there are some that do not deserve continued sales-tax
subsidy (road-projects). These components should be 
able to stand or fall on their own merits, and we 
shouldn't have to swallow this omnibus measure and
*hope* that it is implemented correctly.

Bill
--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.
Newsgroups: ba.transportation