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

[Manish Champsee]

To pick on a whole separate measure...what about Prop 11.  The argument I've
seen is that its unfair to Democrats, however, both Gray Davis and Steve
Westly have endorsed it.

As I see it, how can things get worse?  We have a polarizing legislature
that ensures their own survival where we play the budget game of 2/3 to pass
with no new taxes and all the other stuff that happens every year.  In a
state that is as liberal as we are, I don't see any scenario where the
Democrats get redistricted into a minority.  On the other hand, there is
always the possibility that Democrats could get a 2/3 majority (or even some
less extreme Republicans) so that we don't need to play the budget game.

Manish

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Tom Radulovich <tomrad at well.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081022/9242433f/attachment-0002.htm>