M's Officially on the Ballot

To no one's surprise, Measure M is back and approved for the November ballot per Norberto Santana's afternoon post on the Register's website: Measure M transportation tax goes back on the ballot.  This half-cent sales tax extension is for 30 years, this time, not 20.  Norberto reports the vote was unanimous (was Campbell there?) -- of course, all five Supervisors are also OCTA Board members, with Mr. Campbell having been their last Chairman.

It seems too that a reasonable amount of whining -- on the Register's part, Larry Gilbert's and ours -- also caused some level of sensibility in how M is going to be marketed.  Santana writes, emphasis ours,

Supporters of the initiative are already fundraising to garner campaign funds to advocate on its behalf. The Committee to Renew Measure M is expected to disclose its first fundraising tallies next week.  By law, no public funds can be used to campaign for such ballot measures, although entities such as the Orange County Transportation Authority has maintained many advertisements touting the advantages of Measure M dollars in the past.  Despite the broad support for the road building tax, organizers acknowledge they face a strenuous campaign because of the two-thirds vote need to renew the levy. The original Measure M passed in 1990 with 54 percent.

Whether or not M deserves renewal IS UP TO US -- and not an OCTA advertising campaign which is clearly inappropriate and unlawful.  If it hasn't already happened, it's time for the signs to come down and the bus wraps to be used for real ad revenue generation as they were intended.  Measure M needs renewal on its own merits and past accomplishments (like all those car pool lanes), and needn't be shoved up our exit ramps.

We're going to be very curious about the composition of any "Committee to Renew" and expect that such a grand constituency will include a lot of OCTA vendors like Parsons Brinckerhoff.  They need identification, with concise reporting of the amount of money they're kicking in to such an effort.

UPDATE -- From the LA Times story this morning,

On Monday, the Orange County Transportation Authority approved the plan, which has won support from the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Orange County League of Cities and environmental groups. So far it has drawn no opposition.  Calling itself the Committee to Renew Measure M, the coalition has formed a political action committee and plans to raise campaign money.  Organizers said the campaign would include town hall meetings, direct mail and possibly radio and television spots.

The Orange County Business Council also supports M; in fact, it was their Stan Oftale who gave the OCTA a thumbs up "audit" (no conflict there, Oftale is a past OCTA Chairman).

We'd like to hear from Reed Royalty and the OC Taxpayers Association on this.  (See Comments).

UPDATE -- Coverage from CBS and AP: Board Places Transportation Tax Measure On Ballot.  In part from Todd Spitzer on M's big 2/3rds hurdle,

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said the measure will need two-thirds voter approval to pass.  "Obviously, that's a very significant burden to obtain," Spitzer said. "And so it's absolutely incumbent on OCTA and those who support what we’re doing to show the proper stewardship of the Measure M dollars in its first generation, which we're almost concluding, and then explain to the voters how the money is going to be appropriately spent in the future.  "If we wait for the state of California to solve the transportation situation and address mobility issues, we'll be waiting forever," he added. "If we relied on the state we'd be in in absolute gridlock."

Comments

[conservative voter]

All you local electeds who voted in support of resos praising Measure M, know this...you voted for a major tax increase. Ya, I know, Measure M is important blah blah blah. Years out when you want to run for whatever; remember this post.

[Jeff Flint]

Lurk:

OC Tax and Reed Roylaty support Measure M.

Jeff

[Lurk]

Jeff, are you really sure? I had checked his website and found only this: http://www.octax.org/MeasureMComments.pdf.

This was a series of comments on M which Reed published in February to OCTA Chairman Brown. His final paragraph reads "In coming weeks, OCTax will determine its position on Renewed Measure M based on solutions to the foregoing concerns. We look forward to working with you to try to bring Measure M into conformity with OCTax’s Mission Statement: to make taxes and tax-supported programs “fair, understandable, cost-effective, and good for business.”

That doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.

[Jeff Flint]

I am 100% sure. The vote at OC Tax o support M was in June, I believe, after Reed was satisfied that all the issues he raised had been addressed.

Reed is on vacation this week but his chairman attended the Measure M launch event today.

I have personally attended a dozen Measure M campaign meetings in which Reed spoke in favor of M.

Jeff

[Jeff Flint]

PS - To answer another of your questions, Supervisor Campbell was out of town today, but he dialed in for the Measure M vote. Otherwise, Chris Norby chaired the BOS meeting today.

I also heard Mark Leyes is leading the California effort for Hillary Clinton. Not confirmed by anyone, but why would Lurk care....

[El Canon]

You mean one of the blogpen would post something not knowing its validity?

Say it ain't so.

[Meg Waters]

The committee representatives speaking at todays' press conference included:

Lucy Dunn -- OC Business Council
Curt PRingle, Mayor of Anaheim
First District Supervisor Lou Correa
Fourth District Supervisor Chris Norby
Fifth District Supervisor Tom Wilson
Phil Anthony, Chair Orange County Taxpayers Association
Denise Welsh, OC AARP
HAmid BAhadori, Auto Club of Southern California
Gary Brown, OC Coast Keepers
Wayne Quint, Deputy Sherriffs Association
Jim Adams, BUiding Trades Union

Chairman Campbell voted for the measure via conference call. When it went before all 34 cities, only 4 council members in all, voted no.

As you can see -- its a very broad coalition. And to correct an earlier statement it is not a vote for a huge tax increase, it is a vote for continuing a tax that is already in place to provide infrastructure that we need and we'll never get as long as Sacramento is in charge of our transportation future.. The Measure M funds are already allocated to projects that are available for review (and have been for some time). For example, $1.6 billion will be spent improving the 91 Freeway. But there are many projects all over the county. There is also public oversight and a sunset date -- LA County has a similar tax, but it is permanent.

[Meg Waters]

PS -- Frank Ury fron Mission Viejo was supposed to be there to speak but unfortunately he had an emergency gall bladder surgery and couldn't make it. I'm pleased to report he is fine now and resting comfortably at Mission Hospital (if you want to send a card :) )

Others in attendance but not speaking included Sen. John Lewis, Matt Holder, Tom Phelps, Jerry Amante, and several others ...

[conservative voter]

I'm sure anyone running against those in the affirmative will be quick to point out the difference. Thanks Meg. Who is paying you?

[calwatch]

The key to opposing Measure M is to focus like a laser on the Metrolink expenditure and the rather pitiful Metrolink ridership within Orange County. When that is brought up, many drivers (most of whom have never taken the Metrolink) will scream.

[CRA and I vote]

I don't think Mark Leyes voted for it. He is a good hire for Harman.

[Meg Waters]

Conservative voter -- I work for the campaign

[Art Pedroza]

Do we have any assurances that this money won't be wasted - again - on idiotic light rail schemes? Absent such a guarantee, I won't be voting to renew Measure M.

[Jeff Flint]

Yes, Art, you do. ou can actually read the plan and see there is not Centerline in there.

[Art Pedroza]

Jeff,

But does the measure specifically prevent expenditures of funds on light rail? That is what I and others are looking for.

[JozefColomy]

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that anyone who opposes Measure M can do so by not purchasing as much. Or purchasing more on the internet and less in stores here in Orange County...

I mean, if you feel that a 1/2 cent to the dollar sales tax is a massive burden, there are ways to get around it. Now, I know opposition to this Measure is not based on the amount of the tax, but the principle of another tax, but I think the Howard Jarvis-types should focus the anti-taxation campaigns on larger-scope tax-issues, like the impending Gasoline or Tobacco tax raises.

[Jeff Flint]

Calwatch:

Annual Metrolink ridership is well over 3 million passengers per year. In terms of freeway capacity, it is the equivalent of an additional freeway lane during peak traffic periods. Ridership goes up every year. The transit part of the Measure M renewal, while the smallest part, is a very efficient expenditure of transit funds. THe metrolink piece expands an existing service within currentright-or-way, so there is no or very little ROW acquistion cost. The local transit connections portion is a competitive program where cities compete to build systems within their jurisdiction to move people to and from their train stations to jobs and population centers. That portion has strict control language attached to it to prohibit the funds from being used to build a new, parallel system that could turn into a countywide light rail system. We are talking systems like something to move people from John Wayne Airport to the nearest train station, or from the Anaheim station to the resort area.

To answer the OC Tax question again, Reed Royalty looked very closely at this piece, as did Chris Norby, and were satisfied that the transit program was well-designed, as was obviously the freeways, street and roads pieces. That is why many of the leading opponents of Centerline support the extenstion of Measure M.

Jeff

[Lurk]

Calwatch is right on target. No matter how it's spun, Metrolink is a failure. While I think the 3M passengers per year figure is high, it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to other large commuter rail systems in the country. Both the Long Island Railroad and Chicago's Metra carry over 80 million riders per year. By it own stats, Metrolink only recovers 54% of its costs from the farebox. I understand the subsidy required PER ride is at least $5.25.

As many like to say, the idea that Metrolink is somehow the County's backbone is really misleading. With a daily ridership of about 12-15k bodies (a very generous estimate), the representation of it removing all of ONE freeway lane may be reasonable, but for its overall costs and VERY limited service (only 13 stations in the OC and 19 total trains/day per their '04 numbers), it's a waste of time and money. ONE lane doesn't justify this white elephant. Metrolink is a monument to conventional thinking since it exists only to service Los Angeles as a transit hub.

I can not find any figures to indicate how many people actually use it to commute within the OC, but I'll bet they're miniscule. One can argue then that M is subsidizing out-of-County commuting, and that's not its supposed focus.

Metrolink exists for the sake of saying we have multiple transit options and because the track happened to be there for longer distance travel. It's simply not cost-effective and a waste of resource. Its costs would be much better applied to roads and freeways.

M will channel 25% (say $2.75-3 billion thru 2041) to mass transit -- that's too much for just 3 million train riders a year.

[conservative voter]

I've seen enough campaigns to know anyone who voted for this will be accused of raising taxes.

[tylerh]

Lurk said: M will channel 25% (say $2.75-3 billion thru 2041) to mass transit -- that's too much for just 3 million train riders a year.

Being that I'm too lazy to actually read the material: is that 25% for all mass transit, which would include buses, or trains only?

I'm also confused by this: One can argue then that M is subsidizing out-of-County commuting, and that's not its supposed focus.

Then why was the 5 improved all the way to the county line? My understanding is that getting long-distance commmuters off the freeway is really quite effective at reducing local freeway traffic problems.

My numbers are old, but as of the early 90s the typical trip on an LA free way was supposedly eight (8) miles. So enticing a commuter with a 60 mile trek onto a train would, by this simplistic argument, be the equivalent of getting seven average drivers off the freeway. Put another way, getting a San Clemente lawyer who works downtown onto the Metrolink is one less car that goes through the El Toro Y and the Orange Crush and the 91 split.

[Jeff Flint]

Lurk:

Re Metrolink...the point is to move it to greater capacity. The limitations on how many it can carry are based on frequency of trains and service hours. So while I doubt it would ever carry 80 million people, the comparison to Chicago or Long Island are not fair.

BY the way, the Metrolink piece is about $1 billion. So compare that cost, within existing right of way, to what it would cost, today, to gain similar capacity on I-% throughout the whole county.

The old Measure M did a great job expanding the 5 freeway. But if you tried to do that again, or even add just one lane in each direction, can you estimate how much the right-of-way acquisition, and the number of parcels taken by eminent domain, would be. And that is before you get to design and construction costs. I don't know what the number would be, but I don't think I am off base to say that the cost would be much, much more than the Metrolink costs.

So for a $1 billion investment in expansion of Metrolink service, in the world we live today, you can get much more trip capacity than you can in a freeway that has already seen a major widening like I-5. In that context, the Metrolink investment is the most efficent use of the money for commutes in this direction.

Jeff

[Measure M Conservative]

Jeff,

I agree with you on this one. I realize Measure M is still a tax. But something needs to be done to make mass transit a more viable reality in OC. The population continues to grow and asphalt will not continue to carry the load at even present levels unless there is a good reason to take alternative methods of transport.

As the price of gas continues to climb (and it will), Metrolink and other forms of mass transit will start to look more attractive. And that will cause greater ridership.

[mvactivist]

The new tax (not an extension - read the ordinance) will support the continued waste and fraud being committed by OCTA. Some examples of their poor use of public funds:

1) Centerline - and the Project S and V allocation of more than $1.2B to a similar project, yet undescribed. OCTA claim that the new tax specifys how our money will be spent, but try and find any specifics in these two boondoggles.

2) Metrolink. This costs the taxpayers more than $5 for every ride taken, despite the average income of the riders being in excess of $70/year. Metrolink moves less than 1/2 of one percent of person miles per day traveled in Orange County. Who thinks this is a good use of our money? The riders who are taking our tax money and OCTA, but likely no one else.

3) HOV lanes. OCTA builds grand and extemely costly flyover ranps and HOV lanes to serve a small percentage of the drivers. Many studies show that more cars would move past any given point on a freeway if the HOV lanes were usable by all. New Jersey abandoned its HOV lanes, why shouldn't OC do the same.

There are many more example of OCTA waste that will be made public as the campaign against the new tax gets into high gear.

[Measure M Conservative]

MV Activist, who is going to support the opposition campaign?

As far as waste. I'm sure there was opposition to the Interstate Highway System. I'm sure there are people who said the same things about the most significant and dare I say best investment this country ever made.

Fortunately, the logical amongst that group had the vision to overlook that group and build it.

[mvactivist]

Measure M Conservative:

I know of a number of persons that will be working to defeat this bad proposal.

As to comparisions with (insert your favorite project that has made life better for all here), I don't think comparisons are the issue. What is at issue is the poor management and fiscal irresponibility of the OCTA and the bad priorities of this new tax.

Those who think that Metrolink is a cost effective answer to moving people, consider that the cost per person mile is more than 50 times larger for Metrolink than for roads. Why would anyone, other than those who wish to sponge off of the taxpayers want trains? Perform your own analysis, using published data and you will see what I mean.

My expectations are that only those who want more government in our lives, telling us what to do and where to go would support this new tax.

[calwatch]

Metrolink is also much less effective than local bus service, which extracts much less subsidy per passenger mile (despite the markedly lower bus fares). Metrolink at $10 roundtrip does nothing to help the low income workers of Anaheim and Santa Ana get to their jobs in South County (as OCTA still has to run a bus every 10 minutes to Laguna Hills during rush hour). Local return, while a nice idea in principle, leads to disasters like the Irvine Great Park Grand Tour. (Thanks to Proposition A in LA County, County supervisors have slush buses for their favored organizations, rich cities pay for taxicabs for their residents, and boondoggle transit stations get built. How does that help public transit?)

Measure M gives virtually nothing to local bus service, which is way more effective than Metrolink. Local bus service and Rapid Bus service attracts the people you want to ride transit... the ones on the margins who are driving in beater cars, polluting the air. Removing a new Audi or Honda doesn't help the air as much as removing a ten year old car that severely pollutes. Local bus service helps our seniors make the successful transition to driving less. Metrolink stations are located in seas of parking lots and many Metrolink riders need cars at both ends of the trip. How does that help our seniors?

Spend the transit money on local bus service and you get way more bang for the buck. Metrolink is a subsidy to rich folk that can afford the high fares (which are somehow not high enough to cover the costs) and have a pathological aversion to driving. Bus service is for the common folk who can't or don't want to drive yet still need to get around.

[Measure M Conservative]

I'm guess I'm one of those who want more government since I am tired of sitting in gridlock traffic.

As far as the only ones riding MetroLink are affluent. I ride the MetroLink from Orange to Union Station almost every day. And if I am surrounded by nothing but the affluent I must be on par with the Sultan of Brunei. All I see are regular folks on their way to and from work locales in OC and LA.

It is hardly the silver spoon elite you are trying to make us believe.

[calwatch]

$80,000 household income is above the median even for Orange County. Regular joes are driving their cars, not paying $15 roundtrip to go downtown. (Even with high gas prices, it's still cheaper to drive.)

From the OC Register:

7: Locomotives to be bought
59: Passenger cars to be bought
14,000: Current weekday OC boardings
30,000-plus: Projected weekday OC boardings by 2010
45: Percentage of Metrolink that is subsidized by taxpayers
75: Percentage of OCTA regular-bus system that is subsidized by taxpayers
$80,000: Average income of Metrolink passenger
$18,000: Average income of bus passenger
42: Average speed of Metrolink train (includes stops)
90: Top Metrolink speed

Source: Orange County Transportation Authority

[ocwatcher]

How about government spends the same amount of money on transportation improvement with the current income and we skip the new tax?

If government was as good at completing projects as it is at finding new ways to get money from constituents, well, we wouldn't need more money - or as much government.

[calwatch]

By the way, OCTA bus service may look worse because a greater percentage of the trip is subsidized. (The actual difference is also misstated: official federal statistics (here for Metrolink, here for OCTA). But that does not take into account the capital costs of the equipment (obviously, a train is more expensive than a bus), nor does it take into account the average trip length. Every time someone boards a bus, it costs the taxpayers $2. Every time someone boards a train, it costs the taxpayers $8. Metrolink serves a useful purpose during peak hours, but remember that OCTA wants to run trains all the way to midnight. Why???? What are the destinations near Metrolink stations? Downtown LA is one, OK. Commerce? Giant parking lot. Norwalk? Giant parking lot. Fullerton? OK, maybe you can get drunk in their historic downtown. Anaheim? Giant parking lot (and Angel game... the Pond is a bit of a hike). Orange? A marginal Olde Towne but not much else. Santa Ana? Giant parking lot. Tustin? Giant parking lot. Irvine? Giant parking lot. Laguna Niguel? Giant parking lot.

Unless one has a car parked at each end of the trip, Metrolink is not much use. And most people can't afford to store a car in a parking lot overnight. (Imagine the insurance costs!) Let's keep the peak hour service as it is. If you really want to ride the train, take Amtrak. Otherwise, let's run buses so that those who truly can't get around can do so in an efficient and cost effective manner.

[mvactivist]

Measure M Pseudo-Conservative:

Spoken like a true big government liberal. You would rather have government spend 50 times the money on a train to subsidse your trip than to spend that same money to improve roads. How self-serving can you get?

I'm not suprised that you are in favor of the current Measure M or the new tax, it saves you around $3,200 per year. A nice 'yuppie welfare' gift for you at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers.

You need to change your handle to "Measure M Flaming Liberal Trainhead"

[Bladerunner]

I'm with the poster who feels OCTA should put more into bus service, less into Metrolink. And what, if anything, does this bond measure do for part-time students and the elderly in terms of providing subsidized service?

[Measure M Conservative]

Thank you for that diatribe of personal attacks. You only substantiate your argument has no merit.

And BTW. I don't make anywhere near $70K/yr.

[mvactivist]

Measure M Pseudo-Conservative:

No personal attacks here (except the Trainhead crack).

Your refusal to take responsibility for the cost of your actions and to admit that you are personally taking money away from more valuable projects (measured by objective studies of cost per person mile) is not suprising.

Your annual salary is of no interest to me and not in anyway relevant to this discussion, unless you are claiming that you are entitled to subsidized transportation because you are too poor to afford a car. Please supply your rationale for why the taxpayers should support your use of rail transportation.

[Measure M Conservative]

That's an easy one. Measure M was passed via the initiative process. This is known as a direct democracy. So until that changes I will continue to utilize this method of travel.

[calwatch]

Sure, take advantage of the government freebies, just like the Matthew Leskos of the world. Just don't cry when we take away your toy train from you.

[Measure M Conservative]

If that is what the people decide I will have no problem with it.

As I'm sure you will if the voters decide to approve the extension.