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

Wed Oct 22 13:22:32 PDT 2008

I get a free $50 BART ticket ad.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Manish Champsee <mchampsee at gmail.com>wrote:

> Also, I'm really amused that whenever I'm reading this thread, I get a
> Peter Klivans for BART Board ad at the top.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Manish Champsee <mchampsee at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081022/20e15b33/attachment-0002.htm>