SOCIAL: [Party_Car] DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH

[Tom Radulovich]

On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Eric Arons wrote:

> Thanks again Tom.  So when I was mentioning congestion relief, I  
> wasn't at all talking about building more highways to let more  
> people drive.  But of course, traffic congestion can't encourage  
> alternative transit choices if those choices aren't available.   
> That's more what I meant, that maybe money would be better spent  
> developing a first class regional transit system (like they also  
> have in major European cities) before we start building inter-urban  
> transit to connect LA to SF.  And electrification is already being  
> planned for Caltrain, right?  By 2014 or something?

The HSR bond will get us at least one element of a first class  
regional transit system, by turning Caltrain into a regional metro.  
Without the HSR bond, Caltrain could continue to get upgraded  
incrementally, as funding is available. The Caltrain you see today is  
the result of about 20 years of incremental improvements – not very  
impressive progress. Caltrain electrification has always lacked a full  
funding commitment, so it keeps getting pushed back. Without the HSR  
bond, I doubt it will get completed by 2014, and the Downtown  
extension will take even longer.
>
> Unfortunately it seems like budget constraints force us to be either- 
> or thinkers, at least as these ideas come up.  Of course we'd all  
> love to have everything, but choices are made.  Like you even say  
> below, you'd rather have HSR than BART to SJ.  So is it also a  
> choice of possibly Caltrain improvements with other major regional  
> transit improvements vs. HSR?
>
Not on this ballot; it's the HSR program, or nothing.

Unfortunately, even advocates like TALC have bought into the zero-sum  
transit game, arguing earlier this year that BART capital and capacity  
needs shouldn't necessarily get funded in the Metropolitan  
Transportation Commission's proposed Regional Transportation Plan.  
Livable City, SPUR, and SFBC pointed out that MTC is proposing to  
spend $6 billion expanding highway capacity over the next 30 years, in  
the Bay Area alone. TALC came around, and we plan to pester the MTC  
commission when their next draft comes out in December. There are  
billions more in proposed highway expansion in other parts of the  
state. The Bay Area and California can cover the capacity and  
reinvestment needs of current transit, expand regional transit, and  
build HSR if we stop expanding highways. Presuming California's  
population will continue to grow (not to say that population growth is  
a good idea, but it seems rather inevitable for a few decades more) I  
think passing the HSR bond gives us our best opportunity to make the  
case against further highway expansion.

> So anyway, you say that it won't take away from other worthwhile  
> transit projects.  I guess that's the part I don't totally  
> understand.  I mean, suppose someone has ideas for bond measures in  
> the future for...i dunno...."general local transit improvements" or  
> something like that (ok, I'm making this up and revealing my  
> ignorance).  Don't existing bond issuances make it more difficult to  
> issue future bonds?  Isn't that part of the reason why our bond  
> rating dropped already making it even more difficult?  I'm just  
> thinking we might not want to just take "whatever we can get" just  
> because it's available now.  I know that the perfect is the enemy of  
> the good, but I also think that the "something" can be the enemy of  
> the "something better" (that's terrible - maybe there should be a  
> competition for someone to come up with a better quote).

Funding for most state transportation programs comes from a state tax  
on gasoline, and the sales tax on gasoline, which Proposition 42  
dedicated to the transportation trust fund. There are several ways  
that the Governor and Legislature can borrow against or divert those  
funds, which they have done in the last two years.

General obligation bonds, like those proposed in Prop 1A and Prop 10  
this year, come out of the state general fund. In theory these bond  
repayment obligations don't reduce the highway trust fund, but if the  
Legislature can't agree to raise taxes, then there is a chance that  
general obligation bond repayment liabilities could compel the  
legislature to divert funds from transportation. This year's budget,  
deal took took funds from transit, but kept highway funding intact,  
which is depressing, but also demonstrates what the legislatures  
priorities are -- HSR is a 100% transit bond, which is the most  
transit-focused bond measure ever put before voters by the legislature.

  We did pass a big transportation bond, Prop 1A, a few years back,  
which was a mix of good, bad, and ugly transportation projects. The  
problem with these bonds is that they are grab-bags of the governor's  
and legislators' pet projects, so they tend to be full of highway  
projects and big-ticket, cost-ineffective rail and ferry projects.  
Prop 1A was just that, with, as I recall, over $4 billion for highway  
expansion, dedicated funds towards a list of specific rail and ferry  
projects, and a very useful chunk of capital funding allocated  
directly to transit agencies, to be spent on what they like. BART  
agreed to put most of our Prop 1A funding on stations, access, and  
capacity (MTC strong-armed us into sinking $40 million into the Warm  
Springs Extension). Muni put most of its Prop 1A money into the  
Central Subway.

Regional Measure 2, which increased the Bay Area's bridge tolls by $1  
to pay for a program of 'congestion relief' projects, was another  
legislative smorgasbord; no funding for expanding the capacity of  
existing transit (BART, Muni), but a large sum for Transbay Terminal  
reconstruction (which will increase transbay transit capacity), some  
funding to support transit operations and late-night service, and  
hundreds of millions for BART extensions, wasteful ferry projects, and  
highway expansion that will likely worsen congestion on existing  
transbay transit and bridges.

One would think that $4 gas and climate change would get the state  
legislature and MTC thinking that redirecting funds from highways to  
transit expansion might be a good idea at this point, but I see no  
signs yet; the logic of prior commitments trumps any other sort of  
logic. (something like "We have already spent $20 million on  
engineering, so we might as well spend $980 million to finish the  
project").

The question I ask about bonds is: will our children and grandchildren  
thank us for this? Will they say "Thanks for going into debt to add  
more lanes to Interstate 580?" or "thanks for issuing 30-year bonds to  
pay truckers $50 K a pop to buy new trucks, even though those trucks  
will no longer be on the road by the time the bonds are repaid?" I  
think not. I think they may say that High speed rail is a smart and  
foresighted investment in statewide and regional mobility that will  
make even more sense decades from now as oil and other resources are  
further depleted.

For folks who care about sustainability, I think the strategy should be:
* We need HSR, ASAP; and
* we also need to redirect funding from highway expansion and wasteful  
transit projects towards effective transit and creating walkable and  
bikeable communities.

> Ok, maybe I'm just skeptical about Quentin Kopp.....

As you should be. He is more often wrong then right, but happens to be  
right about HSR.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081022/5dc1c070/attachment-0002.htm>