Issue date: July 07, 1999
By MARION SOFTKY
Former Supervisor Tom Huening, Denise de Ville, president of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA), and other supporters of extending BART down Bayshore Freeway on elevated tracks from Millbrae to Menlo Park do not discourage easily.
Just days after learning that two members of the BART Board of Directors oppose their proposal, they launched a $750,000-plus campaign to qualify and pass twin measures on the March 2000 ballot that would authorize a half-cent sales tax, and advise the Board of Supervisors to spend it on BART.
At a press conference July 1, Ms. de Ville announced they would start gathering signatures within a few days, and planned to spend up to $1 million to get the measure passed by the voters. They will pay collectors for signatures, she said.
"Something needs to be done to get people from their homes in the East Bay to their jobs here so we can get some congestion relief," Ms. de Ville said. "We believe BART through San Mateo County is the way to do that." She estimates the BART extension would remove 65,000 cars a day from county roads.
In a June 24 letter to "Tom/Denise," BART President Dan Richard and San Francisco Director James Fang warned against "publicly promoting a project that we may be unable to deliver."
They cited existing commitments to complete the extension of BART from Colma to San Francisco Airport and Millbrae that is under construction and having difficulty extracting money from a reluctant Congress, as well as a system-wide renovation, seismic upgrading, and possible further extensions in the East Bay. "Our plate is full," they wrote.
In addition, Mr. Richard and Mr. Fang suggested that if San Mateo County wants to extend BART throughout the county, it should join the district, which it pulled out of in 1962.
This suggestion is viewed with extreme caution by many in San Mateo County, since joining BART could mean taking on its property and sales tax, its East Bay responsibilities, and its huge debt. "It may require us to become members of BART at huge cost," said Supervisor Jerry Hill.
Ms. de Ville expressed "disappointment" that Mr. Richard and Mr. Fang now oppose the extension, noting that six BART directors had expressed enthusiastic support. She acknowledged they had "legitimate concerns," and offered to help resolve them. "We still believe in BART's master plan to ring the Bay," she said.
The opposition from within BART is the latest in a wide range of official opposition rising within San Mateo County to the initiatives launched June 4 by Mr. Huening, Ms. de Ville and SAMCEDA.
Two days before the press conference, the Menlo Park City Council opposed the measures, in part because the Menlo Park general plan does not allow BART to terminate in the city. At least three members of the Board of Supervisors oppose them, and SamTrans, the agency that is responsible for dealing with BART in San Mateo County, will debate a resolution opposing the measures at its meeting Wednesday, July 14, at 2 p.m. in the Transportation Building, 1250 San Carlos Ave. in San Carlos.
Opponents say the timing is bad while the Airport extension now under construction is still struggling for money. They also argue the estimated cost of $1.5 billion is at least $1 billion short; the proposal might suck energy and funds from improving Caltrain; and such an important project should be planned and coordinated first.
"It may be a great idea, but it needs to be studied," said Supervisor Hill. "It should be a collaborative effort by the county as a whole, not just a faction within the community."
The debate
**A "Sketch Analysis" by BART engineers recommended an extension of BART on tracks elevated above Bayshore Freeway from Millbrae to Menlo Park as cheaper and less disruptive than a route along the Caltrain right-of-way. It suggested four new stations with parking garages in San Mateo, the Belmont-San Carlos area, Redwood City and Menlo Park, and estimated a cost of $1.5 billion.
**A survey of county residents last February showed that 70 percent would support extension of BART to Menlo Park, and 44 percent would be willing to pay an extra half-cent sales tax. "This is something that's very winnable," said Brian Godbe of Godbe Research and Analysis, which conducted the survey in February.
Based on these studies, Mr. Huening and SAMCEDA prepared the two initiatives, which are based on a successful transit tax passed in Santa Clara County. They are signed by Mr. Huening; Randall Smith, a vice president of Oracle; and San Carlos City Councilman Mike King.
The first measure would advise the county to spend a new sales tax, if approved, to fund a BART extension through San Mateo County, and contract with BART for a self-supporting extension.
The second measure would establish a half-cent sales tax for general government purposes, and a citizens' watchdog committee to review expenditures.
Both measures would pass with a 50 percent vote, giving San Mateo County a sales tax of 8.75 percent, the highest in California.
Supporters of the extension will appeal to voters' frustration with traffic congestion and their general approval of BART. The Godbe survey will help them craft their message to appeal to voters.
The need for traffic relief is obvious. With some 225,000 cars traveling Bayshore every day, rush hour is already continuous, said Tony Gschwend of Brian Kangas Foulk engineers. And it will get worse.
Ms. de Ville gave growth projections with stark implications for traffic: Over 14 million square feet of commercial office development in San Mateo County will add over 60,000 new jobs by 2003 -- not including retail and hotel development and their jobs. "Eight out of 10 new workers live in another county," she said.
Ms. de Ville countered the argument that the initiatives are premature, arguing that we can't afford to wait. "Doesn't it make sense to roll into the next extension when Millbrae is complete? she said. "Let's do it when the project team and the workers are still assembled and the costs are predictable." She also denied there was any conflict with Caltrain. "We need both BART and Caltrain," she said. "It's a piece of the puzzle."
Nevertheless, supporters of Caltrain worry the proposed BART extension will undercut Caltrain even if it doesn't take money directly away from it. "It takes economic energy away from the El Camino corridor and Caltrain, and moves it to an area where there will just be parking lots for people who drive there," said Menlo Park Councilman Steve Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt urges that the first priority for relieving traffic congestion be to complete improvements to Caltrain that are much closer to reality and much cheaper than BART. These include electrification from Gilroy to San Francisco, extension into downtown San Francisco, and renovation of the old Dumbarton railroad bridge for additional trains or buses to the East Bay.
"They want to keep Caltrain in the dark ages," he said.
© 1999 The Almanac. All Rights Reserved.