From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:10:40 GMT


This just in:

The San Mateo County Supervisors decided against removing advisory
measures B & C from the ballot at this morning's meeting.

Measure B says something like "shall SMCo. negotiate to join the
BART district and extend BART throughout the county?"

Measure C says something like "shall SMCo. continue to pursue
upgrading CalTrain to BART-level service and extending the line into
downtown San Francisco?"

Earlier last week, Tom Nolan, JPB Chairman and Board of Supervisors
"transit-honcho", indicated that it was likely the board would pull
B & C off the ballot.  This story was carried by most (if not all)
major newspapers.  Based on some preliminary polling, it appeared
that people were "too confused" about B & C and that many thought
you had to vote yes on one or the other--but not both.  (Since B
says "throughout" the county, this isn't entirely unreasonable.)

Many transit advocates (myself included) are very nervous about B
& C being on the ballot given current conditions.  At this point,
the general public doesn't have any timeframes or costs and doesn't
really know the implications of what they are being asked to vote
on.  So what we wind up with is a touchy-feely popularity poll that
is based more on impressions and image than substance.  Certain
San Mateo County folks (like supervisor and congressional candidate
Tom Heuning) would like very much to divert CalTrain funds and
commitments into saving up for BART.  This would result in *no* rail
transit improvements on the Peninsula for at *least* ten years (when
BART finally reaches SF airport).  Based on the BART to the airport
time-frames, BART to Menlo Park ("throughout the county") could 
easily take another 10 years or more for a completion date of around
2012 or later... 

The SMCo. Board of Supes don't need a public vote in order to
negotiate costs for joining the BART district or for putting some
time and cost estimates on extensions down to Menlo Park.  The
fear is that this "no-facts, no-hard data, no-costs mentioned,
touchy-feely" vote will give them the excuse they need to sit on
their hands for the next 10 or 20 years and wait for BART to come
to the Peninsula's "transit rescue".  Never mind the fact that
nobody has the slightest idea how to realistically fund expensive
BART throughout SMCo.  The CalTrain incremental upgrade path is
easier, cheaper, and can start delivering BART-level service within
about 5 years or so.  

Another kicker: Santa Clara County has no official interest in having
BART.  They have slowly and quietly come to the realization that BART
is not the answer.  Their new Measure A is careful not to make any
mention of BART into Santa Clara County.  What it *does* say, is that
it will fund a "rail link" to Fremont/Warm Springs BART.  How much
sense does it make for San Mateo County to build BART at great cost,
disruption and delay to Menlo Park when the system will merely end
there (in a characteristically huge BART parking monstrosity)? 

San Mateo County residents: I urge a NO on B, and a YES on C.

* we need rail transit upgrades soon, not in 20 years or more!
* we already have the maximum-allowable sales tax
* we can't afford BART without new taxes (gas? property?)
* we can incrementally upgrade CalTrain to whatever service level
  our enthusiasm and funds permit.
* BART costs on the order of $100 to $200 million per mile to extend
* BART SFO is already rumoured to be $150 to $200 million over-budget
* the 75-mile CalTrain line can be electrified for the cost of one or
  two miles of BART
* for the $32.5 million cost of the BART airport studies, CalTrain
  could run train every 15 minutes all day, every day for three years.
* etc.

We need transit-level rail service on the Pensinsula in our lifetimes!

-- 

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