Search title image

TRANSACTIONS NEWSLETTER ONLINE

November/December 2000
Illustration by Matt Foster Poll Vault:
Transportation Measures Clear the Bar in Two Bay Area Counties

When transportation sales tax measures in Alameda and Santa Clara counties vaulted to victory in the November election -- easily sailing over the electoral high bar requiring two-thirds voter approval of special taxes -- their feat resounded far beyond county lines. Santa Clara County

Measure A and Alameda County Measure B displayed gravity-defying prowess, scoring vote totals of 70 percent and 81 percent, respectively. These twin triumphs deserve "the gold" -- not only for ranking among the highest votes ever for transportation improvements in the state -- but also as the first county sales tax authorization measures to measures to win two-thirds voter approval since 1989. Measure A is expected to generate $6.5 billion for Santa Clara County transit projects between 2006 and 2036, and Measure B is forecast to raise $1.4 billion for transit and roadway projects in Alameda County between 2002 and 2022 (see story for more details).

Victory Brings Mixed Blessings
While supporters of measures A and B run victory laps, others are studying the ramifications of this ballot-box success story. One likely consequence is to slow down recent efforts by state legislators to reduce the super-majority vote mandate for future transportation sales tax measures. Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 3, proposed in 1999, would have given voters the option of extending transportation sales tax measures in counties that have them (and to impose new taxes in other counties) by means of a simple majority vote. Despite strong backing from MTC and other transportation interests, SCA 3 did not win legislative approval.

The emphatic voter approval of the Alameda and Santa Clara county measures weakens one of the strongest arguments in favor of SCA 3: that the two-thirds majority is overly, even prohibitively stringent. Ironically, this shift in momentum for SCA 3 comes at a time when the once sacrosanct two-thirds supermajority standard is being relaxed by voters. In the same November election that saw Measures A and B roar to victory in the Bay Area, voters statewide approved Proposition 39, an initiative to lower the two-thirds vote required to pass local school bond issues to a 55-percent majority vote.

"We still believe that basic majority votes are the fairest way to determine election outcomes," said MTC Deputy Executive Director Steve Heminger. "While Measures A and B proved that supermajority victories are possible, they were helped along by a hot economy, a marquee BART project, and a high-turnout presidential election." Marin, Solano and Sonoma counties have expressed interest in becoming "self-help" counties that fund road and transit projects with local transportation sales taxes, noted Heminger, but the daunting two-thirds voter approval barrier may prove tougher for these smaller, more rural counties to overcome.

"Likewise," Heminger added, "it would be extremely difficult for MTC to win a two-thirds vote throughout the Bay Area for a regional gas tax, if we were to pursue that funding option."

All About BART
By most accounts, the driving momentum that propelled Measures A and B over the top was BART. For thousands of traffic-weary Silicon Valley commuters, the promise of extending rapid rail from Fremont to San Jose and Santa Clara was a powerful magnet. Their resounding "yes" votes speak to mounting freeway frustrations and hopes for public transit, even if they must wait 10 years for BART to be built and despite significant financing and political questions that remain.

Projected revenues for extending BART to San Jose -- from Measures A and B, a contribution from the governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Plan and other local and regional sources -- total about $3.1 billion, approximately $700 million short of the estimated $3.8 billion needed for the entire project. Project sponsors may look to federal New Starts funding, discretionary dollars allocated annually by Congress primarily for rail extensions, to close the funding gap.

Political Challenge
The thorniest political challenge facing the project is the belief shared by state and local officials from the East Bay that Santa Clara County must pay a "buy-in" fee to the BART District in return for regional support of the San Jose extension. San Mateo County agreed to pay a similar fee in the late 1980s to obtain regional support for the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport. The San Mateo funds were a key component of MTC's Resolution No. 1876 regional rail agreement, and helped finance East Bay Bart extensions to Bay Point and Dublin now in operation.

As a member of the state Assembly last year, state Sen. Tom Torlakson introduced legislation (AB 2929) prohibiting BART from extending service into Santa Clara County until a buy-in payment was made to help finance BART extensions to Antioch and Livermore. Although AB 2929 did not pass, the spotlight on the buy-in issue will remain -- whether in the form of renewed legislative efforts in Sacramento or local discussions between Santa Clara County officials and the BART Board of Directors.

But for all the unanswered questions, it is impossible to dispute -- and would be foolish to lose sight of -- the bottom line impact for Bay Area transportation. "Measures A and B will raise nearly $8 billion in new funds for regionally significant improvements," says MTC's Heminger. "Together with the $1.7 billion for the region in the governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Plan, the Bay Area finished the year 2000 almost $10 billion richer in infrastructure funding than when the year began. Now that's the way to start a new millennium."
- Marjorie Blackwell & Joe Curley

Contents