No on Regional Measure 2 (RM2)
($1.00 Bridge-Toll Increase Scheme on the March 2, 2004 Ballot in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco,
San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Solano Counties)

 

Return to ACCT Home Go to Ballot Arguments
Go to RM2 Fact Sheet Go to RM2 Spending Summary

 


  

  "When state officials opened the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1936, they 
    promised drivers a free crossing after 20 years, when construction bonds were paid off." 
    ["Bridge Tolls to Double… Free Passage Promise Now Long Forgotten," Alameda 
    Newspaper Group, 12/26/97].

   "It's a waste of money," said Tom Radulovich, a member of BART's board of 
    directors. "I think the ferries will provide very few riders for the operating 
    subsidies it will require." [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].

   State Senator Don Perata’s RM2, "packed with legislators' pork projects," includes 
   $692 Million for ferry purchases and operational subsidies — even for San Francisco to 
   South San Francisco ferries! Since 1989, an Alameda developer and ferry operator- 
    promoter "has given more than $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].    

   
    "It's a user fee that most people won't mind levying because others will pay it."  
    -- State Senator Don Perata, Contra Costa Times, February 7, 2004, illustrating the
    arrogance for which he is notorious.  

    From Ballot Arguments submitted in opposition to Regional Measure 2:    

    u RM2’s promoters deviously framed this 50% toll hike as a "fee" increase,
            so that passage would require only a simple majority. But "fees" should pay for
            directly-related services — not political favors.  

    u Most of any bridge-toll increase should be spent directly on bridge upkeep and
             the Bay Area’s worst traffic bottlenecks. Instead, from "new environmentally friendly 
            ferries" to "a beautiful new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco," RM2 is largely an 
            expensive pińata of special-interest sugarplums.

 


  See useful statistics from the California Alliance for Jobs:

  "Californians pay the third-highest taxes per vehicle in the country, yet they rank 50th 
    in per capita highway spending. Source: State Sen. John Burton's office. May, 1999."  
    
    While we don't agree with all the direct or implicit conclusions of this page, we find some 
    of the statistics presented to be useful. 

    Read "Great Rail Disasters" (pdf file, 545 KB) on how rail transit systems have reduced 
    the livability of municipal areas that have them.   See page 34 for summary of BART.  

 

 


  San Francisco Chronicle, February 19, 2004:

  Perata Campaigns Paid Pal $313,000; Perata Gets Consulting Fee

     "Perata's friend and associate, Timothy G. Staples, has received $313,000 in business   
      from political campaigns initiated or supported by the influential Oakland lawmaker. 
      At the same time, Staples has paid Perata $100,000 in consulting fees that supplement 
      Perata's Senate salary, according to financial records and interviews with the senator....

    "This year, Staples also is raising money for Regional Measure 2, a Bay Area bridge 
      toll increase that Perata helped place on the March 2 ballot through legislation. 
      Campaign documents show Staples Associates so far has been paid $3,000 for work 
      on that campaign but is owed another $19,000.... "   [Read the complete story]

 

 

   Very little of Regional Measure 2 (11.3%) goes to roads, highways, or 
   bridges,  though automobile drivers pay all of RM2's BILLIONS with 
   their tolls.  RM2 funds a series of transit-boondoggle projects.  But 
   even the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's own research 
   shows that despite $70 BILLION or more in new transit funding, transit
   ridership will only have increased from 5.6% in 1990 to 6.2% in 2025!
  
   The table below summarizes the RM2 Plan, as published by the 
   Metropolitan Transportation Commission in booklet form, also at 
   taxpayer expense.  A PDF copy of the scheme (3.3 MB) is available.

 

 

From "Regional Measure 2: Regional Traffic Relief Plan" -- download above if wished.

  Cost factors include capital + any operational subsidy during first 35 years of planned $1 toll increase.
(35 years is the time horizon cited in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's expensive booklet promoting Regional Measure 2)
   (An note that RM2 is financed by revenue bonds; if bridge tolls don't meet debt, they are raised again)

Spending Schemes Grouped by Type for "RM2: Regional Traffic Relief Plan"

Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit Bus, Including Operation

$ 170,000,000

5.65%

Owl Bus Service in BART Corridors

$ 63,000,000

2.09%

Regional Express Bus North

$ 226,500,000

7.52%

Solano County Express Bus Intermodal Facilities

$ 20,000,000

0.66%

Richmond Parkway Park and Ride for Express Buses

$ 16,000,000

0.53%

Vallejo "Intermodal Terminal" -- Bus and Ferry Parking Structure

$ 14,000,000

0.46%

Regional Express Bus South

$ 249,500,000

8.28%

 

 

 

Direct Bus Projects + Operational Expenses

$ 759,000,000

25.20%

Regional Ferry System Expansion, Including Operation

$ 630,000,000

20.92%

San Francisco Downtown Ferry Terminal and Spare Vessels

$ 48,000,000

1.59%

Vallejo "Intermodal Terminal" -- Bus and Ferry Parking Stucture

$ 14,000,000

0.46%

 

 

 

Direct Ferry Projects + Operational Expenses

$ 692,000,000

22.98%

S.F. Municipal Railway (Muni) Metro East Third Street Light Rail

$ 117,500,000

3.90%

Capitol Corridor Rail Improvements in Interstate 80/ 680 Corridor

$ 25,000,000

0.83%

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District Extension to Ferry Service

$ 35,000,000

1.16%

Dumbarton-Bridge Commuter Rail Project

$ 327,500,000

10.87%

 

 

 

Direct Non-BART Rail Projects + Operating Expenses

$ 505,000,000

16.77%

Transbay Tube Seismic Strengthening

$ 143,000,000

4.75%

BART Oakland Airport Connector

$ 30,000,000

1.00%

Commuter Rail Extension to East Contra Costa County (e-BART)

$ 96,000,000

3.19%

Contra Costa BART Crossover

$ 25,000,000

0.83%

BART Extension to Warm Springs

$ 95,000,000

3.15%

 

 

 

Direct BART Projects + Operational Expenses

$ 389,000,000

12.92%

Translink Smart Card Integration

$ 42,000,000

1.39%

Regional Transit Connectivity Plan

$ 500,000

0.02%

Integrated Fare Program

$ 1,500,000

0.05%

"Safe Routes to Transit" (Pedestrian and Bicycle Access)

$ 22,500,000

0.75%

Regional Rail Master Plan

$ 6,500,000

0.22%

Real-Time Transit Information

$ 20,000,000

0.66%

Promotion of Tax Benefits for Transit Users

$ 5,000,000

0.17%

Transbay Terminal/Downtown Caltrain Extension

$ 150,000,000

4.98%

Muni Waterfront Historic Streetcar Expansion

$ 10,000,000

0.33%

BART/Muni Connection at Embarcadero

$ 3,000,000

0.10%

Interstate 580 Rapid Transit Corridor Improvements

$ 65,000,000

2.16%

 

 

 

Miscellaneous and Mixed Use Projects + Expenses

$ 326,000,000

10.83%

Caldecott Tunnel (may include HOV LANE, "auxiliary lane")

$ 50,500,000

1.68%

Interstate 80 Eastbound Carpool Lane Extension

$ 50,000,000

1.66%

Interstate 880 North "Safety" Improvements (incl. SOUND BARRIERS)

$ 10,000,000

0.33%

Interstate 80/680 Interchange Improvements (incl. TRANSIT infrastructure)

$ 100,000,000

3.32%

Interstate 680 HOV LANE Improvement

$ 15,000,000

0.50%

Help Complete Benicia-Martinez Bridge

$ 50,000,000

1.66%

US 101 Greenbrae Interchange/Larkspur (includes FERRY ACCESS)

$ 65,000,000

2.16%

 

 

 

Roads and Freeways, Including Sound Barriers, HOV Lanes, etc.

$ 340,500,000

11.31%

Total

$ 3,011,500,000

100.00%

 

 

   ACCT took a close look at BART in 2002, when that agency sought a 
   gigantic bond measure -- $2.2 Billion in principal + interest cost to 
   taxpayers in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties only,
   whether they ever ride BART or not.  We discovered that as is, 
   taxpayers already subsidize almost HALF of BART's operating 
   expenses.    Other transit carriers, even more heavily subsidized than  
   BART, would get even more of RM2's illegitimate millions.   

 

 

Projected Revenues, 2003

Category

Income

% of Total

Fares

$ 196,825,000

47.9%

Interest

$ 4,944,000

1.2%

Advertising, etc.

$ 11,430,300

2.8%

Tax Dollars

$ 197,639,900

48.1%

Total

$ 410,839,200

100.0%

  Projected 2003 Fare Revenue: $196,825,000  
  Down $22,722,800 from 2002's Adopted Budget



  Note: Labor Expense alone ($ 262,463,600) 
  far exceeds Farebox revenues ($196,825,000)

Projected Expenses, 2003
Category 

Expense

 % of Total

Labor

$ 262,463,600

59.8%

Express Buses

$ 2,675,000

0.6%

ADA Paratransit

$ 9,859,800

2.2%

Purchased Transp

$ 3,393,700

0.8%

Electricity

$ 27,769,200

6.3%

"Other Non-Labor"

$ 63,535,200

14.5%

Debt Service

$ 59,227,000

13.5%

Capital/Rehab

$ 10,000,000

2.3%

Total

$ 438,923,500

100.0%

 Note Deficit Condition; expenses are $28,084,300  
 greater than revenues; it was soon after this deficit 
 was announced that Measure BB was introduced. 

 

There is already a large disproportion in transportation spending

  Transit represents only about 6% of daily trips in the Bay Area -- 
  a little more than half the trips taken by bicycle and walking!

 

More Needs to Be Done About Congested Freeways

 

 

   Regional Measure 2 - Fact Sheet, 1/21/04

Comment

We are not opposed to public transit. In fact, we agree it is essential. However, 82-85% of daily Bay Area trips are made by auto. Even though RM2 is titled as a "Traffic Relief Plan", the proposed allocation of RM2's revenue is skewed toward public transit with only 11.3% going to roads, highways, and bridges -- including sound barriers, HOV lanes, etc.

This is a tax (called a fee) on autos and their drivers and little will go to their benefit - users should benefit from a tax they are required to pay.   RM2 will not improve traffic congestion.

The Facts:

  • Despite hundreds of millions spent on transit in the past, only 5.6% of daily commuter trips in 1990 were by transit. Billions more spent by MTC in the future will only raise this to 6.2% by 2025 (per MTC).  So funds from RM2 will do little in providing traffic relief.
  • MTC already allocates approximately 80% of Bay Area transportation funds to public transit.
  • 23% of RM2 funds are allocated to ferries - the most costly transit type per passenger mile. Today Bay Area ferries carry only 13,000 passenger trips daily versus Muni's 800,000.  Yet ferries will get 5 times the money allocated to Muni.   Many ferry routes have failed in the past.
  • Few, if any, of the projects listed can be completed with planned money allocations.  That means increased taxes to complete them once started. For example:
    • 4th bore of Caldecott Tunnel is allocated $50 million, while estimates to complete it vary from $200-400 million.
    • BART Transbay Tube strengthening is allocated $143 million while BART's defeated bond measure included more than double that for this purpose.
  • A San Francisco BART Director stated, in a public meeting, that RM2 is full of pork 
    and a bad measure    . And the Executive Director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, a proponent of RM2, agreed there are bad things in RM2.
  • Presently most all Bay Area transit districts are in financial difficulty because of low ridership, and are already subsidized by taxes. For example, BART only recovers about 50% of operating costs from the fare box. Most others don't do that well.
  • Autos are still the most flexible, inexpensive, and popular mode of transportation and 
    the most utilized commute method - and yet get only minor funding from this measure.
  • Our highway infrastructure is badly in disrepair - Caltrans estimates a cost of $850 million a year through 2012 to bring repairs to a reasonable level. Only $5 million was spent in 2002 for this purpose (Contra Costa Times, 10/26/03). A better use of any bridge toll increase would be to fix this failing infrastructure.

Conclusions

The proposed uses of revenue from this measure will not improve traffic congestion. The use of 89% of the Regional Measure 2 funds on public transit will not get people out of their cars.

The proponents of this measure refuse to recognize that the vast majority of the public prefers to move about in cars. The huge sums spent on transit in the last 20 years, with little impact, proves this. Even MTC admits that only a small increase in transit ridership will result from spending billions of dollars more in the future on public transit - from 5.6% in 1990 to only 6.2% in 2025.

Public transit is already adequately funded by taxes and MTC already allocates 80% of the Bay Area transportation dollars to transit. Common sense and reality would dictate that this ratio should be reversed and RM2 should be defeated.    It is a bad measure, full of pork (as the 
San Francisco Chronicle recognized)  that will not meet its  purported objectives.

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers 1-800-947-ACCT,  www.ACCTaxpayers.com

 

 

 

  
  BALLOT ARGUMENTS OPPOSING REGIONAL MEASURE 2

  Ballot arguments were submitted in December in each of the 7 counties affected by Regional Measure 2.
  Because rebuttal arguments submitted by opponents appear earlier in the voter-guide pamphlets, these
  are shown first below, arranged in alphabetical order by county.  

  The initial opponent argument, though submitted first, appears in the voter-guide pamphlet after the 
  opponent rebuttal; so it is shown below all the rebuttals.  This initial-argument submission was much 
  the same in all counties, so a single version is shown, below the rebuttals. 

INDEX TO ARGUMENTS:

           1.  REBUTTAL, ALAMEDA COUNTY                             5.  REBUTTAL, SAN MATEO COUNTY
           2.  REBUTTAL, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY                   6.  REBUTTAL, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
           3.  REBUTTAL, MARIN COUNTY                                  7.  REBUTTAL, SOLANO COUNTY
           4.  REBUTTAL, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY                  8.  INITIAL ARGUMENT, ALL COUNTIES  

 

 


 REBUTTALS TO COUNTY ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF REGIONAL MEASURE 2

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  ALAMEDA  COUNTY:

Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY!
RM2 primarily underwrites extravagant TRANSIT projects. Only 11.5% of RM2’s billions affects roads and bridges (including diamond lanes and soundwalls).

  • RM2 provides nothing for Alameda County’s worst traffic bottlenecks, including the 580/238/880 and 92/880 corridors.
  • State Senator Don Perata’s RM2, "packed with legislators' pork projects," includes $630 Million for ferry purchases and operational subsidies — even for San Francisco to South San Francisco ferries! Since 1989, an Alameda developer and ferry operator-promoter "has given more than $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily -- versus AC Transit's 230,000 — and 18,000,000 Bay Area automobile trips. Yet ferries get nearly four times RM2’s AC Transit subsidy, and almost twice RM2’s highway allocation.
  • Public transit is enormously expensive, with little effect on traffic congestion. BART’s 1997 Dublin-Pleasanton extension cost $517 Million then. Sales taxes and property taxes provide almost 50% of BART’s daily operating expenses now.
  • Despite billions more in transit subsidies, transit ridership will rise only from 5.6% of Bay Area daily trips to 6.2% by 2025 [MTC, 1990 & 2001].
  • BART’s $389 Million RM2 cut includes the $143 Million Transbay Tube project. But during 1989’s Loma Prieta quake, BART engineers reported, Transbay Tube passengers "didn’t even sense there had been a major earthquake."

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by
several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We anticipate
similarly cozy special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on RM2!

More information: www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

Waste Watchers, Inc. (Fremont)                   Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
Kenneth D. Steadman, President                Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  CONTRA  COSTA  COUNTY:

Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY!   
Of RM2’s billions, only 11.5% affects roads and bridges (including diamond lanes and soundwalls).

  • RM2 promoters falsely imply full fourth-bore Caldecott Tunnel funding. Instead, RM2 provides only $50.5 Million toward estimated costs over $200 Million.
    As conceived, the extra tunnel benefits only "reverse commutes"     — e.g., weekday mornings INTO Contra Costa County.
  • RM2 promoters falsely imply fully funding eBART to Antioch and Brentwood. But RM2 allocates only $96 Million toward this $377 Million project. "Even if voters approve [RM2’s] toll increase and [November’s] sales-tax extension, eBART would still need $107 million" [Contra Costa Times, 10/11/03].
  • eBART corridors will likely mandate high-density housing.
  • Senator Don Perata’s RM2 mostly underwrites extravagant TRANSIT projects and operational subsidies -- for example, $630 Million for ferries. Since 1989, a ferry operator-promoter "has donated over $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Bay Area ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily -- versus 18,000,000 auto trips. Yet ferries get nearly twice RM2’s highway allocation!
  • Despite billions in new subsidies, transit (including BART) will still account for only 6.2% of Bay Area daily trips by 2025 [Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001].   With automobiles still to provide 82.2% of local trips, and bridge tolls supplying RM2’s entire funding, this measure is a bad deal for Contra Costa County!

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by
several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We anticipate
similarly cozy special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on Regional Measure 2!

 More information: www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers                East Bay Libertarian Party
Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman                      Scott Wilson, Contra Costa Chairman

Citizens for Democracy (Antioch)                    Donald Lively, Coordinator
Ralph A. Hernandez, Chairman                        Lafayette Taxpayers Association

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  MARIN  COUNTY:

Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY. RM2 primarily underwrites extravagant TRANSIT projects.   Only 11.5% of RM2’s billions affects Bay Area roads and bridges.

  • RM2 provides nothing for most of 101’s worst bottleneck corridors -- for example, 131 to Paradise Drive.  
  • Public transit, enormously expensive, has little effect on traffic congestion. Golden Gate Transit (Bus) and Ferry — "for whom the Bridge tolls" — provide only 35,000 of 776,000 daily Marin County trips.
  • Fares and various concessions pay only 19% of Transit/Ferry operational budgets; Bridge tolls and other taxes pay 69%.   
  • Golden Gate Bridge tolls, promised to end in 1970, jumped to $5.00 in 2002.
    RM2’s proposed $1.00 toll increase for other area bridges could hasten Golden Gate’s next increase, and embolden those seeking new transportation sales taxes instead of reasonable highway budgeting.
  • Despite billions more in transit subsidies, transit ridership will rise only from 5.6% of Bay Area daily trips to 6.2% by 2025 [MTC -- 1990, 2001].  
  • State Senator Perata’s RM2, "packed with legislators' pork projects," includes $630 Million for ferry purchases and operational subsidies.  Since 1989, an Alameda ferry operator-promoter "has given more than $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Bay Area ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily -- versus 18,000,000 automobile trips. Yet ferries get almost twice RM2’s highway allocation.

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We predict similarly cozy
special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on RM2!

More information: www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman

Additional Problems, No Room in Official Marin County Arguments:  

  • Golden Gate Transit/Ferry average salaries plus benefits — apparently exceed $90,000 in FY 2004 and may be as high as $100,000.
  • Fares and various concessions pay only 19% of the Transit/Ferry operations budget; Bridge tolls and government funds pay 69%. [Marin Countywide Plan, Transportation Background Report, 2003].
  • "[O]ver 80% of all trips that begin in Marin end within the County." [Marin Countywide Plan, Transportation Background Report, 2003]. The County’s workplaces (accounting for nearly 2/3 of weekday morning trips) and schools
    (accounting for 20% of weekday/school-year morning trips) are too spread out for transit to ever be reasonably effective.

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  SAN  FRANCISCO  COUNTY:

RM2 is highway robbery! 20-year projections of "250%" traffic-congestion growth by RM2’s transit-agency promoters are preposterous and self-serving. In December, MTC itself documented 17% less freeway congestion in 2000-2002 — and 7% fewer BART passengers during 2001-2002.

  • Despite billions more in transit subsidies, transit ridership will rise only from 5.6% of Bay Area daily trips to 6.2% by 2025 [MTC, 1990 & 2001].
  • Providing little real "traffic relief," State Senator Don Perata’s RM2 is "packed with legislators' pork projects," including $630 Million for ferry purchases and operations — even for San Francisco to South San Francisco ferries! Since 1989, a developer and ferry operator-promoter "has given more than $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily — versus Muni’s 800,000.
    Yet RM2 subsidizes ferries with five times the money allocated for Muni.
  • BART’s $389 Million RM2 cut includes the $143 Million Transbay Tube project. But during 1989’s Loma Prieta quake, BART engineers reported, Transbay Tube passengers "didn’t even sense there had been a major earthquake," since BART facilities were constructed "to a higher level of seismic resistance than prevalent practice."
  • One RM2 section exempts Willie Brown's Treasure Island Development Authority appointees from San Francisco’s civil service regulations.

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by
several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We anticipate
similarly cozy special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on RM2!

More information: www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

San Francisco Neighbors Association           Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers 
Julie Lee, President                                              Kenneth Hambrick, Chairman

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  SAN  MATEO  COUNTY:

Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY! RM2 primarily underwrites extravagant TRANSIT projects. Only 11.5% of RM2’s billions affects Bay Area roads and bridges.

  • RM2 provides nothing for San Mateo County’s worst remaining traffic problems, including Route 92 and Devil’s Slide. Instead, RM2’s Dumbarton
    rail scheme plans $135 Million in capital outlays, plus $5.5 Million annual operating subsidies.
  • Public transit, enormously expensive, has little effect on traffic congestion. After subsidizing East Bay BART with many millions, San Mateo County paid
    $171 Million for SFO BART.
  • Now, County taxpayers may fund SFO BART operating deficits exceeding
    $15 Million annually     ["BART Triage," San Mateo County Times, 12/17/03].
  • Despite billions more in transit subsidies, transit ridership will rise only from 5.6% of Bay Area daily trips to 6.2% by 2025 [MTC — 1990, 2001].
  • Meanwhile, new 101 lanes — the kind of practical projects that RM2 largely neglects — have helped reduce 101 congestion 57% since 2000.
  • State Senator Perata’s RM2, "packed with legislators' pork projects," includes $630 Million for ferry purchases and operational subsidies. Since 1989, an Alameda ferry operator-promoter "has given more than $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily — versus 18,000,000 Bay Area automobile trips. Yet ferries get almost twice RM2’s highway allocation.

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We predict similarly cozy
special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on RM2!

More information: www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

e-Minutemen Organization (San Mateo)               Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
Karen Kennedy, President                                       Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  SANTA  CLARA  COUNTY:

Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY!  Of RM2’s billions, only 11.5% improves roads and bridges — none of them in Santa Clara County.

  • RM2 mostly underwrites extravagant transit projects — and enormous new operational subsidies for limited-ridership transportation. RM2’s closest
    project is Dumbarton Bridge commuter rail (capital outlay, $135 Million; annual subsidies, $5.5 Million).
  • 20-year projections of "250%" traffic-congestion growth by RM2’s transit-agency promoters are preposterous and self-serving. In December, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission itself documented 17% less Bay Area freeway congestion in 2000-2002.
  • Despite billions in new subsidies, transit (including BART) will still account for only 6.2% of Bay Area daily trips by 2025, about half the 11.6% walking and bicycle total [MTC, 2001]. With automobiles still to provide 82.2% of local trips, and bridge tolls providing RM2’s entire funding, auto commuters deserve better roads and bridge crossings.
  • Instead, State Senator Perata’s RM2 diverts $630 Million to ferries. Since 1989, a developer and ferry operator-promoter "has donated over $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Ferries provide only 13,000 Bay Area passenger trips daily — versus 18,000,000 by auto. Yet RM2 subsidizes ferries with nearly twice the money allocated for highways!
  • Politicians and special interests may like RM2, but it’s a bad deal for
    Santa Clara County.

The League of Women Voters, its "impartial" Bay Area Monitor subsidized by
several transit-agency RM2 beneficiaries, now endorses RM2. We anticipate
similarly cozy special-interest RM2 campaign funding.

NO on RM2!

More information: www.svtaxpayers.org, (408) 279-5000

www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association          Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County
George Swenson, President                           Ray Strong, Chair

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers              Waste Watchers, Inc. (Fremont)
Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman                    Kenneth D. Steadman, President

ARGUMENTS  PARTICULAR  TO  SOLANO COUNTY:


Regional Measure 2, promoted as "traffic relief," is HIGHWAY ROBBERY! Of RM2’s billions, only 11.5% affects roads and bridges (including diamond lanes and soundwalls).

  • RM2 provides only $100 Million toward the I-80/680 Interchange project’s $740 Million to $1 Billion cost — with "high priority" assigned to "transit infrastructure investment." Enough of the bait-and-switch maneuvers!
    We pay enough now in federal, state, and local taxes (including car and
    gasoline taxes) for the I-80/680 junction to have been fixed years ago.
  • So far, the Solano Transportation Authority has commissioned a five-year,
    $8.1 Million I-80/680 environmental study!     The entire project itself depends on unreliable state funding [Fairfield Daily Republic, 12/04/03].
  • Meanwhile, the spendthrift politicians and special interests seem more interested in enormously expensive public transit schemes and forcing people from cars than in funding real solutions.
  • Senator Don Perata’s RM2 mostly underwrites extravagant TRANSIT projects and operational subsidies — for example, $630 Million for ferries. Since 1989,
    a ferry operator-promoter "has donated over $89,000 to Perata" [San Francisco Chronicle, 09/09/03].
  • Bay Area ferries provide only 13,000 passenger trips daily — versus 18,000,000 auto trips. Yet ferries get nearly twice RM2’s highway allocation!
  • Despite billions in new subsidies, transit (including BART) will still account for only 6.2% of Bay Area daily trips by 2025 [Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001]. With automobiles still to provide 82.2% of local trips, and bridge tolls supplying RM2’s entire funding, this measure is a bad deal for
    Solano County!

Please vote NO on Regional Measure 2!

More information: www.taxwatchers.org

www.ACCTaxpayers.com, (800) 947-ACCT

 


Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group          Solano County Taxpayers Association
Vern F. Van Buskirk, President                          James Williams, President

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
Kenneth E. Hambrick, Chairman


ARGUMENT AGAINST REGIONAL MEASURE 2
(SIMILAR PRIMARY ARGUMENTS WERE FILED IN ALL SEVEN COUNTIES)

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004

Taxes are high enough now to accommodate reasonable needs, including transportation projects.   Each year, as is, "Americans spend more money per capita on taxes ($10,447) than on food ($2,713), clothing ($1,436), and shelter ($5,913) combined"
["Tax Facts," San Francisco Chronicle, 03/27/02].

Continuing bridge-toll increases represent another broken promise by politicians. "When state officials opened the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1936, they
promised drivers a free crossing after 20 years, when construction bonds were paid off." ["Bridge Tolls to Double… Free Passage Promise Now Long Forgotten," Alameda Newspaper Group, 12/26/97].

"[A reckless, last-minute] measure to hike Bay Area bridge tolls by $1… throws around enough pork to stir up the region's most notorious shark-infested waters…."

For example, an Alameda developer and ferry operator who’s "contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bay Area politicians" promoted RM2’s ferry subsidies…. 1998’s
Bay Area bridge-toll increase from $1 to $2 was supposed to be temporary; this new measure would further escalate tolls, and spend the take irresponsibly. ["Bridge Toll
Hike Extends Saga of Fishy Funding," Oakland Tribune, 09/14/03].

RM2 plays other tricks:

  • RM2’s promoters deviously framed this 50% toll hike as a "fee" increase,
    so that passage would require only a simple majority. But "fees" should pay for
    directly-related services     — not political favors.
  • Most of any bridge-toll increase should be spent directly on bridge upkeep and
    the Bay Area’s worst traffic bottlenecks.     Instead, from "new environmentally friendly ferries" to "a beautiful new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco," RM2 is largely an expensive pińata of special-interest sugarplums.
  • For unreimbursed daily bridge commuters, RM2 represents a tax increase of $200 or more annually. Despite "social equity" claims by RM2 promoters, RM2 hits low-wage bridge commuters especially hard.

Please vote NO on RM2!

 

This page was last updated on 02/23/04