From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Why SC Measure A is good
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.225214.23885@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <pd8bces@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> |> I don't know if you want to be the intermediary, Adrian, but
> |> here goes anyway.
> 
> I forwarded your comments (posting) to Alan.

Thanks.

> 
> |> 8.25% sales tax is too high.
> 
> No higher than we've got now.

Right.  It is too high now.  I was against it in 1984, too.  At least
the additional freeway capacity is heavily used (even if you don't
like them).

> 
> 
> |> We already have .5% for transit, and it is being inefficiently spent.
> 
> While I understand that SCCTD isn't exactly the most efficient operation
> in the world, isn't the .5% you're talking about keeping them alive?  I
> guess I'd rather have SCCTD as it is today (warts and all) than nothing.
> Efficiency and raising money for capital projects (which is what the new
> Measure A will do) don't really seem to be that related.  I mean, whatever
> efficiency problems there are, can, and should be, addressed whether or
> not Measure A passes.  It's a separate problem, as I see it.  

No it isn't.  I don't believe in shoveling more money into a wasteful
organization.  San Diego light rail gets 71% farebox recovery.  SCCTD
gets 13%.  It would have to more than quintuple ridership to reach that
level without any additional costs.  Even with the current light
patronage, it's a safe bet that they would need more trains to accomodate
more than five times as many riders.

Let's keep SCCTD where it is until things look a little better for
transit in this county.  Or at least propose a smaller project scope.
Put a tax proposal on for Caltrain (shouldn't need more than .1%).
I'll probably vote for it.

> 
> |> There has to be more than just putting in rail lines.
> 
> Which of the "just putting in rail lines" projects do you have a problem
> with?  Do you deny that they are needed and useful things to have?

Every one except for Caltrain.

> |> There is currently no plan to get a reasonable farebox recovery from
> |> transit in Santa Clara county.
> 
> So because of this you want to hold capital upgrades to CalTrain and
> the building of new light rail lines to connect things like CalTrain
> and BART in Fremont hostage?  I dunno, maybe you're right and that will
> make farebox recovery skyrocket, but I *really* doubt it.  Probably, the
> best thing we can do for farebox is to do the Measure A projects so that
> transit usefulness and consequently ridership increases.

I see.  SCCTD is inefficient right now.  So what we need to do is give it
a whole lot more money to build and operate a bunch of new lines.  This
will make it more efficient.

> |> The current half cent sales tax was sold in '76 as the answer to Santa
> |> Clara county's transit needs.  Now it is used up just to run the system
> |> we have; there's nothing left over for capital projects.  There is nothing
> |> in Measure A to make me believe that the proposed additional tax will be
> |> spent any more wisely.
> 
> Measure A is for the *capital projects* you complain there's no money for.

It is also to be used to operate those projects.  Have you read much about
it?  Look.  The current sales tax is maxed out operating what we have.
If we build more, we need more money to operate it.  This was one of
the Mercury's complaints in their editorial about it; the money goes
to build AND then operate the new service.

> 
> If Measure A fails, the Tasman light rail extension to Mountain View is
> in jeopardy.  As most of you know, it will extend light rail to connect
> with CalTrain in downtown Mountain View and will serve Lockheed.  The
> other end of the Tasman project will extend eastward to the area of
> Capitol Expy. & Hostetter Road.  If Measure A fails, CalTrain upgrades,
> including electrification will become far less certain.  Etc.

I don't believe it.  First of all, Tasman doesn't deserve to get built.
Vaughn posted something a few months ago about how it missed the targets
to get FTA money for new rail starts (based on capital cost per new
rider) by something like a factor of 3.  So it was funded as a "demonstration
project".  I guess pork is okay if we get to eat it.

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

jeremy