Informed but opinionated commentary and analysis on urban transportation topics from the Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal. Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

Our Mission: Monkeywrench the Anti-Transit Forces

 
SEATTLE MONORAIL PROJECT DEMISE PREDICTED BY . . . SOMEONE . . .

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

Before beginning our latest post, Your Favorite Transit Pundits will reiterate our "monorail skeptics' disclaimer."

IF monorails could do half of what supporters claim, we'd be the staunchest of supporters. We are, after all, a TRANSIT cabal. But, in Seattle, the technology was chosen first, then the route was selected.

In other words:
--"Say, let's build a Monorail!"
--"OK, so where we gonna put it?"

Sorta like buying a train set from the local "big-box" retailer, then deciding where to set it up. Except that this particular train set will cost roughly $2 billion, or more.

The planned Crown Hill - Ballard -downtown - West Seattle monorail was not outlined to serve any of the "priority" travel corridors identified by more than two decades of planning. Instead, it was outlined explicitly to avoid conflict with the Sound Transit "Central Link" light-rail project -- which does serve one of the priority corridors (two, once funding is secured).

In short, the Seattle monorail proposal is totally divorced from anything resembling good planning. And, so long as planning is required as a condition to receive federal transportation funding -- it might as well be good.
-----

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal has received word of a rumor, floating around the Internet, that some monorail fana . . . er, enthusiasts . . . have going ballistic over someone's prediction that the Seattle monorail project will collapse because voters will rescind financing once they learn the true cost. Well . . .

We Opinionated Ones avoid trafficking in unsubstantiated rumors, and we could not find any reference to this one. Intrepid websurfers know, of course, that 1.) there are such things as "private" message boards and discussion groups, 2.) not everything that appears online gets cached or archived, and 3.) not everything that gets published on paper appears online.

However, the "big picture" conveyed by the several versions we've received and heard about is simply that somebody wrote an op-ed, published, either in French or German, in some newspaper, magazine, or online source. The key word here is "op-ed." We may be opinionated, but we respect the right of others to hold their own, too.

And, to be honest, we're not sure what the fuss is about. All the op-ed writer said (evidently) is that the price tag will escalate as design work proceeds, owing to factors such as land-acquisition cost, utility-relocation cost, additional expenses to place power lines underground, station costs and so forth.

(That's not rocket science -- this sort of thing happens all the time with large-scale construction projects.)

The writer also predicted that, in response to higher-than-anticipated costs, somebody will start circulating petitions for an initiative to rescind funding for the project, which voters will approve.

(That's also not rocket science -- it is very easy to qualify an initiative for the municipal ballot in Seattle.)

We've received a transcript of a hysterically funny excerpt from a "flame war" between a mono-phobe who described the op-ed in some detail -- and a mono-phile who said that he, his wife and another relative thought this was "gibberish." (Rather alarming, actually -- no one in the family can follow a logical train of thought . . . oh, of course not, it's a TRAIN of thought). Unfortunately, the original no longer appears on the message board, and the napalm exchange, however entertaining, is not much more than a distraction. So we've decided not to reproduce it here.

The key question has nothing to do with where this op-ed was published, or by whom. It's whether the scenario is plausible. We think so, and we're not the only ones with this opinion. However, we also think that collapse of the Seattle monorail project would not be a positive development for transit overall (we are, after all, a TRANSIT cabal), and so we don't plan to celebrate should this occur.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/30/2003 01:03:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 5

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal continues our coverage of The CernterLine light rail project in Orange County, CA.

We've checked with legal counsel, and we're assured that we can’t be held liable for providing a link that might cause someone to laugh themself to death. So, check out the site of the opposition group, "nocenterline.com", now known as FAIR Transit (that stands, more or less, for "Fund Alternatives to Light Rail") www.nocenterline.com. Try not to laugh too hard . . .

Check out the list of "transportation experts and scholars" opposed to the project, including Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). SAP™ laureate Peter Gordon is there, together with the inimitable Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM (. . . wonder if he can squeeze "NKVD" or "KGB" in there . . .) and James E. Moore II, and, of course, Wendell.

(HEY! Stop that!! We told you not to laugh!!!)

You'll even see links to a Wendell special titled "Light-rail or Jaguar?" This, of course, is the same line of "reasoning" that Your Favorite Transit Pundits decisively refuted -- and the Fudgemeister didn't dare to challenge our "Transit Publica vs. Lexus Privata" analysis!!!

(Maybe he's chicken . . . Cheep! Cheep! Cheep!)

Just about the funniest thing we've come across in cyberspace: some time ago, in the "old" Cabalbunker, one of us TransitCabalists found a website with an anti-rail song, "If (your transit agency) Only Had A Train," sung to the tune of "If I Only Had a Brain." It WAS funny . . . but the laughter died down long after this little ditty ended. It went on . . . and on . . . and ON . . . See here www.nocenterline.com/Wizards.html but be forewarned as above, and that the file is large -- 4 mb.

Once again: we are NOT liable for "damages" in case any of you intrepid websurfers start rolling on the floor and laugh your whatevers off.

Lyrics were written by arch CenterLine foe John Kleinnpeter and self-proclaimed arch-foe of light rail worldwide (and SAP™ laureate) Vic Vreeland. Vreeland provided the vocals (funny . . . he doesn't sound quite like the "angry white male" that he seems to enjoy playing). If you'd like to check out another of ol' Vic's efforts, see here www.railroadingamerica.com . . . but don't laugh too hard.

Late in 2001, the Irvine city council approved a measure to submit the CenterLine plan to a public vote when preliminary engineering and environmental studies were "far enough along so that the public could understand more completely what the CenterLine consisted of and what the potential impacts of the project might be," see here www.ci.irvine.ca.us/depts/pw/centerline/default.as. Residents of the Woodbridge and Oak Creeek neighborhoods objected to the planned alignment, and this was revised. Petitions for two competing measures, one for, one against, were circulated, and the council agreed to submit both at the same special election, set for Tuesday, June 3, 2003

(Both measures failed by similar margins of about 48% yes, 52% no; this has given spinmeisters on both the pro- and anti-LRT sides excessive license to, well, "spin").

Both ballot measures were amendments to the Irvine General Plan and Municipal Code. Measure A would have authorized the OCTA-planned alignment. Any future extensions or modifications would have required voter approval. Measure B, the brainchild of rail foe John Kleinpeter (a former chair of the Irvine Planning Commission), would delete all references to light rail from the General Plan, effectively barring CenterLine or any other rail project from Irvine without future approval by voters.

Political charges and counter-charges flew back and forth between supporters and opponents. Part of the rhetorical battle reflects the fact that two Orange County supervisors who sit on the OCTA board are opposed to the CenterLine project. In April, an OCTA flyer sent to registered voters in Irvine was attacked as a misuse of public funds, and a second mailing was cancelled.

A selection of letters to the editor, Orange County Register, pro and con, is here.

Owners of the South Coast Plaza mall in Costa Mesa want the line placed underground, but the OCTA board rejected this idea in April owing to lack of federal funds to pay for construction of an underground alignment.

OCTA's "myths" page is here www.octa.net/center/intro/myths.asp. The Rail Advocates of Orange County page is here www.railadvocates.org/railadvocates/welcome.shtml.

Perhaps the hard-core opponents realize that they account for a rather small (but noisy) number of Irvine residents . . .

Given the ambiguity after both measures were turned down, one factor which probably has opponents on edge: they've certainly figured out that Irvine voters, for now, may keep The CenterLine out of Irvine, but they alone can't kill the project. The Orange County Grand Jury, which issued a blistering critique of the (then-) 28-mile plan in 1999, a fresh group of jurors has reversed prior direction 180 degrees and decided that the project seems "inevitable" and has recommended changes to boost ridership: addition of Santa Ana College as a destination and offering temporary interim bus service along the planned route.



posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/25/2003 02:38:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 5

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal continues our coverage of The CernterLine light rail project in Orange County, CA.

We've checked with legal counsel, and we're assured that we can’t be held liable for providing a link that might cause someone to laugh themself to death. So, check out the site of the opposition group, "nocenterline.com", now known as FAIR Transit (that stands, more or less, for "Fund Alternatives to Light Rail") www.nocenterline.com. Try not to laugh too hard . . .

Check out the list of "transportation experts and scholars" opposed to the project, including Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). SAP™ laureate Peter Gordon is there, together with the inimitable Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM (. . . wonder if he can squeeze "NKVD" or "KGB" in there . . .) and James E. Moore II, and, of course, Wendell.

(HEY! Stop that!! We told you not to laugh!!!)

You'll even see links to a Wendell special titled "Light-rail or Jaguar?" This, of course, is the same line of "reasoning" that Your Favorite Transit Pundits decisively refuted -- and the Fudgemeister didn't dare to challenge our "Transit Publica vs. Lexus Privata" analysis!!!

(Maybe he's chicken . . . Cheep! Cheep! Cheep!)

Just about the funniest thing we've come across in cyberspace: some time ago, in the "old" Cabalbunker, one of us TransitCabalists found a website with an anti-rail song, "If (your transit agency) Only Had A Train," sung to the tune of "If I Only Had a Brain." It WAS funny . . . but the laughter died down long after this little ditty ended. It went on . . . and on . . . and ON . . . See here www.nocenterline.com/Wizards.html but be forewarned as above, and that the file is large -- 4 mb.

Once again: we are NOT liable for "damages" in case any of you intrepid websurfers start rolling on the floor and laugh your whatevers off.

Lyrics were written by arch CenterLine foe John Kleinnpeter and self-proclaimed arch-foe of light rail worldwide (and SAP™ laureate) Vic Vreeland. Vreeland provided the vocals (funny . . . he doesn't sound quite like the "angry white male" that he seems to enjoy playing). If you'd like to check out another of ol' Vic's efforts, see here www.railroadingamerica.com . . . but don't laugh too hard.

Late in 2001, the Irvine city council approved a measure to submit the CenterLine plan to a public vote when preliminary engineering and environmental studies were "far enough along so that the public could understand more completely what the CenterLine consisted of and what the potential impacts of the project might be," see here www.ci.irvine.ca.us/depts/pw/centerline/default.as. Residents of the Woodbridge and Oak Creeek neighborhoods objected to the planned alignment, and this was revised. Petitions for two competing measures, one for, one against, were circulated, and the council agreed to submit both at the same special election, set for Tuesday, June 3, 2003

(Both measures failed by similar margins of about 48% yes, 52% no; this has given spinmeisters on both the pro- and anti-LRT sides excessive license to, well, "spin").

Both ballot measures were amendments to the Irvine General Plan and Municipal Code. Measure A would have authorized the OCTA-planned alignment. Any future extensions or modifications would have required voter approval. Measure B, the brainchild of rail foe John Kleinpeter (a former chair of the Irvine Planning Commission), would delete all references to light rail from the General Plan, effectively barring CenterLine or any other rail project from Irvine without future approval by voters.

Political charges and counter-charges flew back and forth between supporters and opponents. Part of the rhetorical battle reflects the fact that two Orange County supervisors who sit on the OCTA board are opposed to the CenterLine project. In April, an OCTA flyer sent to registered voters in Irvine was attacked as a misuse of public funds, and a second mailing was cancelled.

A selection of letters to the editor, Orange County Register, pro and con, is here.

Owners of the South Coast Plaza mall in Costa Mesa want the line placed underground, but the OCTA board rejected this idea in April owing to lack of federal funds to pay for construction of an underground alignment.

OCTA's "myths" page is here www.octa.net/center/intro/myths.asp. The Rail Advocates of Orange County page is here www.railadvocates.org/railadvocates/welcome.shtml.

Perhaps the hard-core opponents realize that they account for a rather small (but noisy) number of Irvine residents . . .

Given the ambiguity after both measures were turned down, one factor which probably has opponents on edge: they've certainly figured out that Irvine voters, for now, may keep The CenterLine out of Irvine, but they alone can't kill the project. The Orange County Grand Jury, which issued a blistering critique of the (then-) 28-mile plan in 1999, a fresh group of jurors has reversed prior direction 180 degrees and decided that the project seems "inevitable" and has recommended changes to boost ridership: addition of Santa Ana College as a destination and offering temporary interim bus service along the planned route; see here www.lightrail.com/news/news03-04-10-1.htm. Note in particular Kleinpeter's comment that the new report "reads as if it were written by OCTA." (We've heard similar-sounding lines from Seattle rail opponents . . . who are generally more astute than this.)



posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/25/2003 02:38:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 4

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

Now that Your Favorite Transit Pundits have finished our "background" overview of state transit financing in California, we turn to the Orange County scene.

Rail transit planning in Orange County began during the early 1970s. A sales-tax increase to fund a heavy-rail system, connecting with one proposed for neighboring Los Angeles County, was rejected by voters in 1974.

Voters rejected a proposal for a one-percent "transportation sales tax" in June 1984 with a "no" vote greater than 70 percent. This would have raised an estimated $15 billion over 15 years. Most of this (of course) would have gone to highways, but 20 percent was dedicated to transit operations and development of a 38-mile light rail system. Supporters spent more than $1.5 million while opponents raised less than $100,000. Rejection was attributed to resistance to new taxes and perception that large developers would reap the most benefit,

A "second try" was submitted in November 1989, but attracted a 54-percent "no" vote. This was to pay $3.1 billion of the cost for a 20-year, $11.6-billion "transportation" plan. Most of the money was (of course) to be used for highways, including construction of 140 miles of HOV lanes. The largest project was widening of a 20-mile section of the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) from six to 12 lanes (cost: $550 million). The plan did allocate $400 million to transit, including commuter-rail service to Los Angeles and Riverside, with "light rail or monorail" development to come at some later date.

A 20-year $3.1 billion plan, "Measure M," was approved in November 1990, attracting a 54 percent "yes" vote. Of the total, 42.3 percent was allocated to widening of four freeways, 32.5 percent to regional and local road improvements, and 25.7 percent, or $775 million, to transit. The transit program included purchase of railroad rights-of-way used by Amtrak and the (then-) planned commuter rail service. $340 million was designated for construction of an "advanced rail transit system" in the Anaheim-Irvine corridor. Implementation of the 0.5-percent tax was delayed until 1992 owing to court action by tax-limitation activists.

Metrolink commuter-rail service to Orange County began in 1994. Meanwhile, an 87-mile "Urban Rail Master Plan" was adopted in 1991 (see here www.octa.net/center/intro/history.asp . The north-south trunk, dubbed "The CenterLine," was planned as the first segment. Studies continued, and a Major Investment Study was completed in the Fullerton - Irvine corridor in 1997. Environmental studies began in 1998, but the Orange County Transportation Authority put the project on hold in 2001, citing lack of support from local officials in cities along the line. That remains true in some cities. However, the mayors of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Irvine hastened to ask OCTA to continue the project (details of "Partner Cities" here www.octa.net/center/intro/cities.asp). This show of support convinced the OCTA board to continue with preliminary engineering over an 11.4-mile route between Santa Ana, Costa Mesa andIrvine, with a proposed 0.8-mile extension to Santa Ana College. The estimated cost in "year of expenditure" dollars is $1.2 billion, of which federal funds are anticipated to pay 50 percent (financing details here www.octa.net/center/intro/funding.asp). Completion is planned by 2011, although the line could be in operation as early as 2009, see here www.irvineworldnews.com/Astories/apr24/centerline.html. An accelerated construction schedule was approved by the OCTA board in April; construction is anticipated to begin in April 2006 for completion by October 2009.

See the Federal Transit Administration's project description here www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2000/octacr01.htm.

According to the OCTA website (here www.octa.net/center/intro/10int.asp), "Subsequent polls and surveys have continued to demonstrate the public's strong support. According to a June 2001 survey, respondents, by a margin of 3 to 1, had a favorable impression of light rail. When asked to choose between light rail or new freeways, county residents, by a margin of nearly 2 to 1, chose light rail. Despite localized neighborhood opposition, there continues to be overwhelming support (70-75 percent) for a light rail project along The CenterLine alignment."

They're being discreet. The project has attracted stubborn, tenacious opposition whose leaders can’t seem to stand the idea. No reason in particular; they just can't stand it.

Before we continue: Orange County, CA, is not the community that many people -- including a certain percentage of the population -- think it is. It's not all low-density sprawl. Average density of the urbanized areas is rather high, and some parts -- including Santa Ana, the county seat -- have very high densities for U.S. cities. Nor is the population "ethnically homogenous." Santa Ana, for example, has a large Latino majority, and Westminister is the center of the country's largest community of Vietnamese ancestry. The epicenter of opposition to CenterLine is Irvine, a textbook example of a suburban "new city" with a demographic and personal-income profile very different from older "OC" communities.

And, having noted these details, we'll wind up this installment.


posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/16/2003 04:55:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 3

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal continues our coverage of the CenterLine project in Orange County, CA, with more "background" on state transit financing.

If the Fearless Fudgemeister has hacked into your computer, it'll probably CRASH as you read the following!!!

A curious "link" tied the success or failure of the transit bonds (Prop. 108) to the gas-tax hike (Prop. 111). If voters had approved the former but not the latter, the bonds authorized could not be sold. The political class obviously feared, as pre-election polling revealed, that a majority of voters did not favor freeway expansion. For example, a May 1990 poll in Sacramento County found that 52 percent of respondents favored emphasizing transit over highways, 33 percent favored an equal emphasis -- and only 10 percent favored an emphasis on highways. That means that 85 percent supported an "equal or greater" emphasis on transit. Results such as this made Governor Deukmejian and other politicians very nervous about what might happen if voters could act separately on transiit and highway financing.

In fact, the "official" campaign for Prop. 108 and 111 emphasized TRANSIT, because pre-election surveys found that an emphasis on highways might lead to rejection!!!

(You won't read THAT on "the public purpose" anytime soon . . .)

For Prop. 116, PCL and TRAC raised $500,000 for a petition drive -- and managed to gather nearly 700,000 signatures. Supporters then raised $600,000 for a campaign for approval. Although supported by many politicians and transit operators, Prop. 116 was a "grass-roots" project.

Governor Deukmejian and other state political leaders were far more interested in winning approval for Prop. 111 than for Prop. 108. Deukmejian and legislative leaders saw Prop. 116 as competition. The "official" transit bond issue (Prop. 108) was an attempt to dissuade PCL and TRAC from placing Prop. 116 on the ballot by petition -- which costs big bucks in California owing to the state's large population. But Deukmejian insisted on the "link" between the transit bonds and the gas tax, and Prop. 116 backers proceeded with their petition drive.

The campaign for the gas-ax hike was beset by controversy; meanwhile, the rail bond proposals attracted no organized opposition. Backers of Prop. 108 and 111 agreed with backers of Prop. 116 to support each other's proposals. Deukmejian eventually broke his agreement by announcing opposition to Prop. 116 four days before the election. Meanwhile, a funding shortage threatened to shut down the state highway-building program, forcing Caltrans to become a "maintenance and safety operation." A first round of road project delays was announced early in 1990. (Caltrans even asked the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for $40 million, without specifying whether it wanted a grant or a loan!)

ONCE UPON A TIME,
IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS!

(with apologies to the Moody Blues; complete lyrics here breakup-songs.com/moodyblues.html; this website is dedicated to "best all-time breakup songs and breakup song lyrics.")

The state gas-tax and rail bond measures were not the only transportation-financing measures on the June 5, 1990 ballot, but they received the most attention.

Proposition 108, the "official" rail bond proposal, 56 percent "yes."
Proposition 111, the "official" gas-tax increase proposal, 52 percent "yes."
Proposition 116, the rail bond initiative, 53 percent "yes."

Remarkably, voters in the most auto-oriented California counties -- Orange and Santa Clara -- REJECTED the gas-tax hike by narrow "no" margins. But voters in other large but less auto-oriented counties APPROVED by substnatial "yes" margins. Hmmm (the obvious explanation: the campaign emphasizing transit).

The pace of this "revolution" slackened after 1990, owing in part to the state's long post-Cold War recession. Voters rejected the "subsequent" $1 billion rail bond installments in 1992 and 1994. On the other hand, freeway expansion gradually wound down. Governor Gray Davis announced in 2001, up on opening the first six-mile section of a Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) extension, that it would be the "the last freeway built in California" because the state had run out of money and land for new freeways. The New York Times headline read, "California Governor Sees an End to Freeway Building" (August 21, 2001; you'll have to pay to see the original story on the New York Times website, www.nytimes.com, text of the article is here bassett.hypermart.net/transit_2001_summer/page6.html, courtesy the "Public Transit Interest Index Page" here www.geocities.com/larry_bassett/public_transit ). A New York Times editorial on August 22, 2001 was titled, "The Last Freeway." Despite the howls from the pro-highway camp, most everyone agrees that the large-scale freeway building is a thing of the past. (For the text of a 2002 speech by a disgruntled highway-phile to the California Asphalt and Pavement Association, see here republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=211 .)


posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/13/2003 04:48:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 2

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

Sorry we've been down for the past few daze...buggy Apple server software!! That darn Steve Jobs!!

Anyway,

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal continues our coverage of the controversial CenterLine project in Orange County, CA. We've decided that it's worthwhile to include "background" information on the overall state transit financing picture. (Lotsa facts and background . . . another reason why you like our blog!!!)

Supporters of a 1980 proposal to impose a 10-percent surtax on profits earned by large oil companies within California came up with a snappy slogan: "TAX PIG OIL!" But voters, evidently fearing that the tax would simply be passed on as higher pump prices, gave it a 56-percent "NO" vote.

The same bill, approved in 1981, that imposed the first gas-tax increase since 1963 also permitted counties to impose, with voter approval, a half-cent sales-tax increase to finance "transportation" improvements. This was primarily intended to provide additional highway funds without additional gas-tax hikes.

Now get ready, because here's a part that the "highway lobby" (and Wendell) REALLY don’t want you to read:

After 1987, voters in large urban and suburban counties began REJECTING county transportation sales-tax measures THAT DID NOT ALLOCATE A SIGNIFICANT SHARE TO TRANSIT!

So began one of the most remarkable "revolutions" in U.S. transportation financing history. (For once, Your Favorite Transit Pundits aren't exaggerating . . . the reason this story isn't better known is because it took place 15 years ago, during the "dark ages" pre-www.)

Jerry Brown was succeeded as Governor of California by George Deukmejian (1983-1990), a conservative Republican with strong support from the tax-limitation movement. He wanted to speed freeway construction, but was frustrated by inflation and a growing shortage of funds. He firmly (some would say "stubbornly") opposed boosting the gas tax. Instead, he proposed a $1 billion bond issue for freeways.

!!!VIVA EL SIETE DE JUNIO!!!
!!REVOLUCION!!
!!TRANSPORTES PUBLICOS, SI!!
!!AUTOPISTAS, NO!!

It's difficult for us to convey what a totally unexpected shock California voters delivered on June 7, 1988, when they rejected Governor Deukmejian's freeway bond play by a very narrow margin of "no" votes. Of the 45 (!) bond issues submitted to state voters between 1982 and 1990, only this one (!!) was rejected. State politicos assumed the measure would attract wide support. Instead, the vote touched off months of conflict between governor and legislature over the gas-tax issue.

(If you see flashing warnings along the lines of DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING, you'll know that the good, er, Mr. Fudge has hacked into your computer. Believe us, he REALLY doesn't want you to see the next part!)

Meanwhile, early in 1998, a small group of rail supporters decided over coffee and donuts to draft a bond initiative for major new funding for intercity and urban rail projects. This effort was led by the Planning and Conservation League (website here www.pcl.org) and Train Riders Association of California (website here www.calrailnews.com). PCL and TRAC developed a plan, totaling $2.9 billion, and secured backing for a petition drive and a campaign for approval; the plan qualified for the June 5, 1990 ballot as "Proposition 116."

(As far as Your Favorite Transit Pundits have been able to determine, nothing like this had EVER been done before, anywhere in the U.S.)

The Proposition 116 drive compelled the politicos to include substantial transit funding in the "official" plan that might not have been included otherwise. Under the "official" plan, totalling $18.5 billion, the state gas tax was doubled in stages, truck weight fees were increased by 50 percent, and a $1 billion transit bond issue was submitted to voters. The bond issue was Proposition 108; the measure authorizing the tax increases was Proposition 111. Of the $3.5-billion "transit" share, none was provided by the gas-tax increase. (But you figured that out already, didn’t you?)

We'll have more in our next post.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/11/2003 10:59:00 PM

 
LIGHT RAIL VOTE IN IRVINE (ORANGE COUNTY) CA - Part 1

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

NOTE: Both measures in Irvine on LRT failed; Measure A that would have affirmed the City's support for an LRT line, and Measure B, put on the ballot by anti-LRT NIMBY activists. Looks like Irvine voters remain to be convinced.

From the Cabalmaster:

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to bring you details of the controversial Centerline project in Orange County, CA -- together with a generous helping of opinionated commentary (which, of course, is why you grok our blog!).

But first, a bit of history . . . ancient history . . ., (well, almost). Many websurfers may be surprised to learn that California began developing significant funding sources for public transit more than 30 years ago. If you live outside of California (or are too young to remember), this is the story that your friendly neighborhood highway lobby would prefer that you DIDN'T read!!

(And we'll bet that Wendell would REALLY prefer that you didn't read the following!!!)

(Hey, was that a winning sales pitch or what???)

California voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1938 establishing the California Highway Trust Fund" in 1938. This was one of the first measures to limit motor fuel tax revenues to road construction and maintenance in the U.S. During the 1950s and 1960s, the state Department of Highways (now the Department of Transportation, "Caltrans") built many miles of freeways. But funds began to run short by the end of the '60s. Governor Ronald Reagan (1967-1974) did not attempt to win support for increased highway funding. His successor was Edmund G. ("Jerry") Brown, Jr. (1975-1982). Brown imposed a moratorium on most highway construction and sought to develop urban transit and intercity rail services -- mostly with available funding. But strong pressure to continue freeway expansion did not go away. The Legislature eventually approved the first gas-tax hike since 1963, but Brown insisted this not take effect until 1983, after he had left office.

The first proposal to amend the state constitution and permit use of gas-tax funds for transit was submitted in 1968. It would have permitted the Legislature to use an unspecified share for pollution control -- and would have permitted local governments, with voter approval, to divert up to 25 percent of "highway trust fund" money collected in that city or county to transit construction. This idea attracted very strong opposition from the traditional "highway lobby" but from the business community in general. Opponents raised nearly $350,000 for their "NO" campaign. -- and 75 percent of this amount was contributed by oil companies. Supporters were caught off guard when the Legislature APPROVED the measure three months before the election. They managed to raise just $16,000. The opposition fielded a last-minute "blitz" suggesting that approval would lead to toll booths on freeways. And so, in November 1968, the measure was rejected by a 54 percent "No" vote. But voters in seven San Francisco Bay Area counties did approve, together with Santa Barbara County. The "yes" vote in San Francisco proper was 65 percent. (San Francisco is organized as a "City and County," the only one in California.)

James R. Mills, President Pro Tempore of the state Senate, pushed a bill through the Legislature in 1971 that provided a dedicated source of state funding for transit operations and construction. This complex measure, in short, cut the state sales tax a bit but extended it to motor fuels, which were previously exempt. Then, in 1973, with the support of the Nixon Administration, the "Federal-Aid Highway Act" opened the first small crack in the federal Highway Trust Fund. California transit supporters were encouraged, and Mills decided to take another swing at the state Highway Trust Fund. His new proposal permitted diversion of up to 25 percent of gas-tax revenues to construction of "exclusive public mass transit guideways." Use for transit operation was prohibited. This time, businesses were in favor, the oil companies stayed neutral (no doubt due to the political repercussions of the 1973-1974 oil embargo) and little organized opposition appeared. Supporters raised more than $200,000. Opponents raised a mere $1,700 -- donated by the Southern California Automobile Association. In June 1974, voters statewide approved with a 60 percent "Yes" vote. Governor Reagan insisted on a second vote in each county before gas tax funds could be diverted (he didn't want to make it TOO easy . . .). But companion measures were eventually approved in the counties which, together, house about 90 percent of the state's population.

"Exclusive public mass transit guideways?" This wasn't defined, but Mills and others made clear that busways and bus facilities need not apply (these could be built with highway funds). Orange County officials attempted to define HOV lanes (aka "transitways," reserved lanes for buses and carpools) as "mass transit guideways." The state Attorney General ruled against this in 1987, and the Legislature rejected a "redefinition" proposal in 1988.

But the Legislature DID approve in 1986 a bill permitting use of gas-tax funds for capital improvements along "intercity passenger rail routes" where Caltrans provides part of the operating funds. A subsequent bill, approved in 1989, approved use of gas-tax funds for capital improvements along ANY "publicly-financed" intercity rail route in the state, AND potential commuter-rail routes, AND routes of a "mixed" character (intercity and commuter).

Did somebody say, "Revolyutsii!"

The BEST part of this "prequel" is yet to come!! More in our next post.

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/04/2003 08:30:00 PM

 
AUTO PROTEST SONG FROM 1923

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

"Truth passes through three phases: 1) It is ridiculed. 2) It is violently opposed. 3) It is accepted as self-evident." Albert Schopenhouer. In the United States, rail is currently passing through Phase Two.


From the Cabalmaster:

AOOOGAH! AOOOGAH!
"Hey, Hey, Mister, what's the matter with you!"
"C'mon, C'mon, Walk!"

The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is pleased to share a "tip" about an automobile protest song, recorded way, way back in the last century . . . way, way back -- in 1923! Imagine . . . big-city thoroughfares, filled with flashy flivvers flitting to and fro, a frantic, fearsome ferrous flood; foreboding and frightening to pedestrians . . .

"Der Automobile" is not exactly a call to arms by the pedestrian lobby, but a "lament about poverty," decrying "the disparity between rich and poor as seen in America's already incessant consumerist drive." Lyrics, in translation, include the following:

"Not every body can own one
Imagine how they feel
To be too poor to afford to
Ride in an automobile."

We liked it, and you may too, especially if you have an interest in klezmer music.

("Der Automobile," recorded by composer, bandleader and fiddler Abe Schwartz, known as the "Klezmer King," with vocals by Morris Goldstein, October 1923. Original release by Columbia Records. Re-released on CD "Abe Schwartz The Klezmer King," Columbia/Legacy, CK86321, 2002, see here www.legacyrecordings.com/klezmermusic/abe.html. Quotes and lyric excerpts above from jacket notes by Henry Sapoznik.)

posted by The Cabalmaster, Master of All Transit-dom 6/02/2003 03:26:00 PM