From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:10:00 GMT

In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
|> Voting yes on [measure A] will result in a .5 cent higher sales tax
|> from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will otherwise have.

This is debatable.  The sales tax in Santa Clara County is "maxed out"
to the maximum allowed right now.  When the existing Measure A expires
there will be a half cent "up for grabs".  Don't bet on that half cent
of taxing authority going unclaimed if the new Measure A fails.  There
are others who would just love to put other things like anti-drug/gang
and child-care issues to the voters.  In this case I'm speaking of Zoe
Lofgren, a Santa Clara County Supervisor who would rather put her own
package of goodies on the ballot for that 1/2 cent.  If the new measure
A fails, I'm confident there will be many more attempts to snag that
extra 1/2 cent of taxing authority.


|> And as I've pointed out, at that point, the choice will have to be
|> made to continue [the measure A tax], or face massive [transit]
|> service cuts. So, essentially, it takes the .5 cent temporary tax
|> and makes it permanent.

Yeah well, 20 years is fairly permanent as far as I'm concerned anyway.
But seriously, it's worse than you make it sound, because we're already
facing the prospect of pretty hefty cutbacks right now.  When the ADA
requirements kick in, unless we've got a source of funds like the new
measure A, there will have to be even more service cuts to comply.  (If
the feds say that transit must be equally accessible to all without
providing money to help do that, you can either reduce service provided
to all to pay for it, or you need additional funds.)

If you build a bigger transit system, it might cost more to run.  On
the other hand, maybe this valley will be different in that transit
will be more popular in 20 years and will have a better cost recovery.
Perhaps many of the silly/inefficient bus routes can be trimmed--or at
least rearranged to run more economically--once more of the light rail
is in place.


|> > 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 something not quite clear to me.  I presume that it will
|> provide Santa Clara county's share of funds to do this.

Yes, or at least mostly.

|> Or are we actually voting to pay to upgrade Caltrain in San Mateo
|> and San Francisco counties for them (what a deal! no wonder you like
|> it Adrian, you live in Menlo Park!  :-))?

Oh, you mean like how San Mateo carried the majority of effort and cost
in the right of way purchase?  Santa Clara contributed nothing to the
right of way purchase.  I'm not sure, but I think some of Measure A will
even be to reimburse San Mateo County for some or all of Santa Clara
County's share of the ROW purchase.


|> If San Mateo C passes, then they will presumably provide their share,
|> but I don't see strapped SF anteing up any time soon.  So voting yes
|> on measure A doesn't seem to guarantee Caltrain upgrades.

Don't worry.  If Santa Clara County approves measure A, there'll be a
good sized chunk of money earmarked for CalTrain service increases and
capital upgrades.  San Mateo will "come along".  Remember that just
like San Mateo wanted the right of way purchase to go through badly
enough to go forward without Santa Clara County's immediate help,
Santa Clara County is anxious enough to increase CalTrain service
whether San Mateo helps or not.  Forces external to the Santa Clara
County government are mounting to make this happen (the Santa Clara
County Manufacturing Group and the business community at large, as
well as many other groups, to name a few).



|> > 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.
|> 
|> This succulent little pork chop (hmm, I get hungry thinking about it)
|> is great, because, like the Colma BART station, the rest of the country
|> is paying for it

You can thank Congressman Norm Minetta for that "pork chop".  Hey,
as long as congress is doling out pork, we might as well get some.


|> I wish we had multiple measures like SM county:
|> Measure C (Caltrain -- seems worthwhile)
|> Measure T, V, S, and F (Tasman, Vasona, Stevens Creek, and Fremont)
|> Measure R (Roads)

I question whether Joe Blow ought to be making decisions at that level.
I don't think opinion polls are the right way to do transit.  In order
to intelligently vote on that stuff, Joe Blow needs to know more than
he should have to know about such matters.  If elected officials had
the brains and the balls to do their jobs and do what's right/best
based on some simple goals, then they wouldn't be getting voter approval
for every rail line built on a piecemeal basis.

|> Adrian, how would you vote if SM measures B and C were lumped together?

I don't really think either of them should be on the ballot given the
lack of detailed information available to the public to make a truly
informed decision.  And, as I said before, to make a truly informed
decision on this stuff, may really go beyond what the average voter
should have to (or cares to) know about such matters.  The politicians
really ought to be able to figure out what's best on the BART/CalTrain
issue--but they're afraid to.  It's fear of going against what's popular
and the sense that it's just politically far easier to "go with the
flow" on this one.  At least that's what I think.

Oh, I almost forgot to answer your question (kind of like a politician
at a debate, only they don't forget, they artfully "stray").   If
B & C were lumped, I'd vote yes.  Only because a "no" vote would send
the wrong message.  A "yes" vote would indicate a strong desire for
improved rail transit.  Sort of implicit in B is that the electorate
will get to vote for real (B & C are only advisories) on joining the BART
district *after* the results of the County's negotiations with BART are
available.  At that point, it would be clear what we were up against
in terms of time-to-build and cost, and BART would likely be voted down.


-- 

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