Issue date: June 30, 1999
By MARION SOFTKY
As BART inches down the Peninsula toward San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae, former Supervisor Tom Huening's proposal to bring BART farther down Bayshore Freeway to Menlo Park is fanning San Mateo County's never-dormant transit wars.
While Bayshore commuters and businesses along the rapidly growing corridor may have visions of getting thousands of cars off freeways and bridges, many transit advocates fear diversion of energy and money from the major goal of improving Caltrain, which they see as the best vehicle to provide modern, coordinated transit in the next millennium.
County voters will have a chance to decide in March 2000 if backers of a pair of ballot measures get enough signatures to put them on the ballot. The measures would ask voters to approve an extra half-cent sales tax, and a plan to spend the money on extending BART through San Mateo County.
This week backers of the measures plan to start gathering signatures. To qualify for the March ballot, they need to collect 20,772 signatures by December 15, according to Linda Tulett of the county elections department.
The initiatives are sponsored by Mr. Huening, who was elected county controller after serving three terms on the Board of Supervisors; San Carlos City Councilman Mike King; and Randall Smith of Oracle Corp., vice president of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA). SAMCEDA President Denise de Ville is coordinating the signature campaign.
Proponents envision BART trains running on elevated tracks above the median of Bayshore Freeway. There would be four new stations with parking and access for the disabled, and a connection with Caltrain and possible future transit across the Dumbarton Bridge to the East Bay. Mr. Huening suggested there might be a station in Menlo Park where the Dumbarton rail spur crosses Bayshore Freeway.
"BART would run down Bayshore immediately next to new jobs that are being created," Mr. Huening said. "It will take thousands of people off Bayshore."
"The timing could not be worse," fumed Supervisor Mike Nevin, who also serves on the governing boards running SamTrans (which handles the county's role in the current BART extension) and the three-county Joint Powers Board (which operates Caltrain). He is involved in tricky negotiations in Washington, D.C., where BART is trying to extract enough money from a reluctant Congress to pay for the $1.5 billion BART extension to the airport that is under construction right now, with bills still coming in. "He's playing right into their hands (the people opposed to funding BART)," Mr. Nevin said. "He's doing tremendous damage to the people of San Mateo County."
Mr. Huening countered that the initiative should be an asset in garnering federal funds. "The projects that demonstrate the greatest local support are those most likely to be funded," he said.
Opposition to the measures, which were launched without fanfare June 2, is beginning to coalesce. Supervisors Nevin and Jerry Hill have proposed a resolution to SamTrans opposing the initiatives. It will be debated at the board meeting Wednesday, July 14. "Let's pin down the money from Washington before we offer to pay local funds," said Supervisor Hill. "I think this is destructive and very divisive."
The Menlo Park City Council June 22 indicated it would consider a similar resolution opposing the initiatives. Menlo Park's general plan does not allow the extension in Menlo Park, said Councilman Steve Schmidt. "It's a bad idea," he said. "It takes energy away from the transit we already have along Caltrain and El Camino."
Highest tax
San Mateo County is already collecting two half-cent sales taxes: a half cent goes to SamTrans for BART indefinitely; and a Measure A tax passed in 1988 funds primarily Caltrain and other general transportation through 2008.
The first initiative, to establish a general purpose half-cent sales tax throughout the county, would require a majority vote. The measure also calls for creating a "Citizens Watchdog Committee" to review expenditures.
"This is not a transportation tax," said County Counsel Tom Casey. "The Board of Supervisors could put it into parks or jails or the hospital."
The second initiative would advise the Board of Supervisors to use the money to fund a BART extension through San Mateo County, rather than for other purposes. It would advise the board to contract with BART for a self-supporting extension.
The proposed tax would raise San Mateo County's sales tax from 8.25 to 8.75, the highest in the state.
"I have a real serious concern about making us the county with the highest sales tax in California," said Supervisor Rich Gordon, another opponent of the measure at this time. "This is a serious detriment to business."
Not so, said Mr. Huening. "It would make a very small difference in the cost of goods and provide an enormous benefit in people being about to move around San Mateo County."
Mr. Huening estimated the tax would generate over $50 million a year toward the cost of extending BART to Menlo Park, which he estimated at $1.8 to $2 billion for some 16 miles. The 8-mile extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae costs upwards of $1.5 billion, some $200 million per mile.
Supervisor Nevin said the actual cost would be much higher. "SamTrans said they're at least a billion dollars short," he said.
Opposition taking shape
While supporting the future need for new rail extensions, they argue the current proposal could undermine regional efforts to get the federal government to fully fund the Airport extension. In addition, they charge the proposal was made without adequate analysis of technical or financial feasibility, coordination with other Bay Area transit agencies, or public participation.
"He's (Supervisor Huening) is out there by himself in wonderland," Mr. Nevin said.
Opponents fear that current emphasis on extending BART could undercut other major transit investments, such as high speed rail, which may come from Southern California along Caltrain lines into San Francisco, as well as other major transit funding proposals under consideration. "San Mateo County taxpayers should not be asked to fund a BART extension to Menlo Park substantially or exclusively on its own," the proposed resolution says.
Mr. Huening argued there is no conflict between BART and Caltrain. "I think we need both systems; BART is to complement Caltrain," he said. "This is a completely different and new source of funds."
Meanwhile, both BART and Santa Clara County are taking no position. "We have no position on the initiatives," said BART spokesman Mike Healey. "Our focus is on getting the Airport extension completed."
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian commented: "It's probably a pretty good idea. It's three or four decades too late."
Menlo Park Councilman Schmidt wonders at the mystique that BART still maintains almost 40 years after San Mateo County pulled out of the project to "ring the Bay with rail." County voters regularly approve measure supporting BART by large margins -- like 74 percent for a 1992 measure authorizing BART through San Mateo County, but without the money.
Noting that county voters have supported Caltrain with even more enthusiasm than BART, he added, "This romance about BART, it's irrational."
© 1999 The Almanac. All Rights Reserved.