From: bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: November election critical for CalTrain
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:43:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: bike2work
Keywords: CalTrain

It is unfortunate that the success of CalTrain seems
to depend so heavily on the success of Measure A in
Santa Clara County. While a CalTrain upgrade is 
most certainly a good thing, the same cannot be said
for Measure A. 

While Measure A *has* earmarked a *significant* percentage
of the money raised by the tax measure for transit, 
there are major flaws in the plan. Key among these are

1) The original measure A was to have provided for the
   completion of several highway projects in the county.
   These projects will *not* have been completed by the
   expiration of the original tax measure, and yet the 
   proponents of the new Measure A are making claims to
   the contrary.

2) In addition to "finishing" these projects, several
   other roadbuilding projects have been added to the
   list. The net result of these road projects will be
   continued sprawl, the triggering of growth in South
   San Jose, and the continued sales-tax subsidy to
   motorists.

3) lack of timetables & priorities - there are indications
   that the road projects will be bonded, and hence
   completed first...there do not seem to be any moves
   afoot to guarantee the completion of the transit 
   projects in a similarly timely fashion.

I've included other points below:



                      REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE A

1.   The use of a sales tax to fund transit or road construction is regres-
     sive.  It  is widely recognized that the only way to reduce congestion
     and its attendant pollution problems is the adoption of a market based
     transportation  system  which  correlates  cost with use. A reasonable
     first step in this direction is to fund transportation  infrastructure
     through fuel taxes and other user fees.

2.   The Measure A transit plan is based on politics,  not  good  planning.
     The  expenditure  plan in the measure identifies specific corridors in
     which rail transit will be constructed.   The  corridors  listed  were
     originally  part of the County's T2010 transportation plan, created by
     politicians from the various cities of  the  County.  No  professional
     transportation  planners  were involved in the selection of corridors.
     T2010's own projections reflect it's  poor  quality;  predicting  that
     only 5% of all trips in the County will be made by transit by the year
     2010! We should build a transit system with a minimum target of 25% of
     all trips.

3.   The impact of the road projects in the measure  are  greatly  underes-
     timated.  The completion of Highways 85 and 87 will trigger new growth
     in South San Jose, and will encourage people to drive, because "it  is
     free",  versus  transit,  for  which fares, and in some cases, parking
     charges, must be paid. Decreases in  air  quality,  and  increases  in
     congestion,  both  on  the freeways and on the surface streets will be
     the ultimate result of these construction projects.


4.   Public (Transportation) Policy should be  formulated  in  public,  not
     behind  closed  doors. The Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group, the
     leading player in the so called "citizens' coalition" which formulated
     Measure  A,  has  held  all  of its meetings in private, inviting only
     select members of the public.  By  formulating  policy  using  such  a
     "citizens'  group", the parties involved hoped to avoid the 2/3 major-
     ity vote normally required to pass a tax measure (intitiatives require
     only a simple majority).

     I was privy to the actions of  the  "coalition"  through  associations
     with  Modern Transit Society, Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Associtation,
     and the Sierra Club.  Many of us were given the strong impression that
     agreement  with the final measure was a precondition for attendance at
     these meetings, despite recent protestations by SCCMG to the contrary.

     Most of the significant suggestions made by MTS, SCVBA and Sierra Club
     were ignored.

     One of the biggest problems with  the  development  of  transportation
     policy is that it is very difficult for the public to understand. Such
     an understanding is crucial, in order that the public be  enfranchised
     in  the planning process, so that the systems which are developed meet
     the public's needs. By developing this measure in private, the  public
     was not exposed to all the issues affecting transportation policy, and
     is therefore, unable to make intelligent & informed decisions.   Judg-
     ing  from  the system we have in place today, transportation policy is
     not something that can be left up to  the  politicians  (and/or  local
     corporate "citizens").

     The intention of the Brown Act is to prevent public policy from  being
     conducted  behind  closed  doors. Representatives from the cities, and


                              August 19, 1992


                                   - 2 -
     the County were all encouraged to attend,  yet  the  public  was  not.
     While  it  may  be  that  by not having a majority of any one of these
     bodies present, the "citizens' coalition" may have complied  with  the
     letter  of the Brown Act, but the spirit of the law has most certainly
     been compromised.

5.   The Citizens'  Oversight  Committee,  as  set  up  in  Measure  A  has
     extremely  limited  powers. The only explicit power given to the Over-
     sight Committee (on which the Sierra Club has one seat) is  the  power
     to  approve  or  veto  amendments to the expenditure plan, which first
     must be initiated by the Transportation  Authority  (5  local  elected
     officials). This so called "veto power" that the "Citizens' Coalition"
     touts so highly has absolutely no  power  to  influence  selection  of
     staff,  purchase of equipment, influence routing decisions, etc. These
     powers are granted solely to the Transportation  Authority.  Even  the
     yearly  audit  that the Citizens' Oversight Committee may perform must
     first be approved by the Transportation Authority.

7.   The Measure A sales tax will last for a period of 20 years.  Consider-
     ing  that  the  original Measure A lasted only 10 years, and the Santa
     Clara County Transit District has only been in existence for 18 years,
     we feel the magnitude & duration of this Measure to be too great.

     One of the major selling points of the original measure A was that  it
     would  expire  in 10 years. The original measure predicted that income
     would exceed expenditures by ~ 200 million dollars, and yet by the end
     of the original authorization, the orignal measure A projects will not
     have been completed, and all the money raised will have been spent.

     Much of the impetus for this "reauthorization" of the original Measure
     A  is that the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, the agency admin-
     istering those freeway projects has failed to complete the projects on
     schedule,  and  within  budget.  We're  now talking about setting up a
     similar bureacracy to administer a program twice as large,  and  twice
     as long.

8.   Details, Details. There has yet to be a full accounting of  how  money
     will  be spent, and on what schedule. There is no guarantee, for exam-
     ple, that the road projects will not be  pursued  first,  leaving  the
     funding  of  the  transit  projects  to be stretched out over a longer
     period, resulting in higher costs, and perhaps not being  finished  at
     all, if there is a falloff in sales-tax revenue.

9.   The transit section of Measure A will be operated by the  Santa  Clara
     County Transportation Agency. This same county agency has had signifi-
     cant problems operating existing services.  It is questionable whether
     the SCCTA could operate the proposed new systems on budget, again here
     accounting is lacking. A competetive bid processs should  be  used  to
     select  the operator of future transit services.  Efficiency of opera-
     tion might only be achieved by such a public/private partnership.

10.  The Measure includes no subvention of funds  to  local  jurisdictions.
     Unlike  most  other  transportation  measures, Measure A fails to pass
     funds back to local juridictions (cities and county) to support  local
     projects.  Typically such local funds could be use to repair crumbling
     roads, operate  shuttle  vehicles  and  fund  bicycle  and  pedestrian
     improvements.

11.  The Measure includes no commitment to corresponding land use  changes.
     Transit  will  not succeed without making supporting land use changes.


                              August 19, 1992


                                   - 3 -
     Will cities allow  clustered  housing  around  transit  stations?  Are
     developers  willing  to  reduce  the amount of parking which currently
     surrounds office buildings?  These  and  other  fundamental  questions
     should  be examined before the County commits billions of dollars to a
     new transit system.

12.  No provisions exist in the Measure  to  examine  current  systems  and
     implement  improvements  based  on feedback from transit system users,
     and data collected in operating those systems.

REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS

1.   We need a long lived  appropriation  to  allow  local  governments  to
     change their land-use plans to dovetail with transit plans.

     This is like saying we need a  balanced-budget  amendment  to  control
     expenditures. A transportation sales-tax makes regional cooperation on
     land-use no more likely.

2.   We need to have a 20 year measure to establish a basic transit  skele-
     ton.

     This might be true if the planned projects were based on some sort  of
     professionally  developed  transportation  plan. This is not the case,
     however, as indicated the list of projects is based purely on  politi-
     cal  considerations.   What  major  corridors, major activity centers,
     population centers, do these projects connect? How  are  the  services
     integrated?  How are the transit services *fed*? By automobile? If all
     we accomplish by building transit projects is changing peoples' desti-
     nations,  we  will  have accomplished *nothing*. Poor air quality, the
     high cost of doing business, and unaffordable  housing  will  continue
     plague the region.

3.   If we don't vote for Measure A, transit in  Santa  Clara  Valley  will
     wither  because political leaders will view the Measure's defeat as an
     indication from the voters that transit is not politically popular.

     With such an omnibus package, it will be hard to  tell  what  peoples'
     reasons  for voting for/against it might be: desire to keep taxes low,
     opposition to sales-tax funding for freeways, opposition  to  transit,
     or  just  plain economic hard times. Such conclusions notwithstanding,
     if politicians lose the will to deal with transportation issues as a a
     result  of  Measure  A's failure, then the public has every right (and
     responsibility) to vote them out of office.

     It will take more than  capital  expenditure  projects  to  provide  a
     viable  alternative  to  the  automobile.  Both Muni & AC Transit have
     recently raised their fares,  despite  significantly  higher  fare-box
     returns in those systems. As long as people perceive the cost of driv-
     ing as being substantially lower than that of  the  alternatives,  the
     lion's share of all trips will continue to be made by car; and as long
     as transportation funds are spent on  freeways,  other  transportation
     projects will continue to be cash-starved.

4.   A defeat  for  Measure  A  would  mean  a  victory  for  road-building
     interestes.

     The idea that Measure A's defeat would lead to increased  roadbuilding
     is  doubtful in light of recent court decisions regarding air-quality,
     as well as funding constraints  and  popular  resistance  to  measures


                              August 19, 1992


                                   - 4 -
     which increase traffic on local roads.

5.   Highway projects from the original measure A will be completed regard-
     less.

     With what money? One of the key motivations for the new measure  A  is
     the  fact  that  these  projects will not be complete by the time that
     funding from the previous authorization runs out.

6.   This measure "gives the public what it wants" because it is  based  on
     polls conducted by the Manufacturers Group.

     Only the summary polling data were released. Access to the  raw  data,
     and descriptions of the methodoloty was denied. Why?

     Polling data by *no means* shows an overwhelming support for  a  sales
     tax, as opposed to a gas tax. As far as we can tell, the polls made no
     effort to explain to people that on average, more money is spent  per-
     household  on  sales tax than on gas tax; or to provide any other con-
     text that might allow a more informed response.

     On one hand, the Manufacturing Group's polls lead them to say  that  a
     gas  tax  is favored less than a sales tax, and therefore we should go
     with a sales tax. On the other hand, their polls say that  a  majority
     of  people  favor a 10 year measure, rather than a 20 year measure. So
     in addition to lack of access to and explanation of  polling  methods,
     the interpretation also seems to be politically motivated.

     The main problem with legislation by poll, however, is that it  leaves
     out  entirely the idea of political leadership, and informed decision-
     making on the part of the public.

7.   We can't get a gas tax because the enabling legislation doesn't exist.
     We can work on gas tax later, but we need the money for transit *now*.

     If we authorize a 20-year sales tax, we're going to have an  *awfully*
     hard time selling a future gas-tax.

     We've been having transportation  related  problems  for  *quite  some
     time*  now.  Many  organizations  have recognized "Market-Based" stra-
     tegies as key elements of the solution (the  Metropolitan  Transporta-
     tion  Commission, The Manufacturing Group, and Bay Area Economic Forum
     to name a few) steps should have *already* been  taken  to  facilitate
     the  use  of  gas tax. In addition to "selling" such a proposal to the
     public, political will for such a revenue  source  will  be  diminshed
     with the passage of this tax measure.

8.   Highway projects are a small fraction of the total expenditure.

     This is true, but only because of the *enormous* ammount of money this
     measure will raise. To put things into perspective, the original meas-
     ure A projects were supposed to cost $400 million. The new  measure  a
     will  raise  $143 million for highways. So we see that the subsidy for
     roads continues apace, despite the support for transit.
--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.