OCTA’s Measure M mailer states that they plan to add lanes on the SR-91 Freeway. Hmm. Where have we heard that before? Without providing a lengthy rebuttal to this slick mailer I will say that in Nov of 1990 we were “guaranteed a new lane in each direction, and major interchange improvements on the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91).” What we got was the current 91 Toll Road along with a “non compete” clause preventing CALTRANS from adding free lanes on SR-91. This deception should not be rewarded. You fooled us once. We will not be misled again. They now tell us Centerline is dead but in my debate with Supervisor Bill Campbell he refused to respond to my question. “Can you guarantee that OCTA’s Master Plan does not contain the 87 mile Urban Rail Network?”
Enough said. We need to send OCTA a message. This renewal of Measure M is flawed. Vote NO!
Larry Gilbert, Co-author REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
I too was upset when I found out that there was a non-compete clause added into the toll road agreement and cringe whenever I need to use the east 91 since I refuse to purchase a transponder out of principle. As a result, I want OCTA to guarantee me the extra lanes on the 91. Huuhhh? Why should OCTA cater to me, right? Then why in the heck should OCTA cater to you (LG)? What kind of pompous attitude is that asking for a personal guarantee from OCTA. We should all be so priveledged.
I, for one, am in favor of an Urban Rail network. The wasted millions should have been used to build the first leg of a giant rail network. Yes, Measure M is flawed so what we need to do as a community is work on removing some the hacks(i.e. electeds) running OCTA which is a monumental task in itself. Either way, investment in infrastructure is always beneficial in the long run. One of the main problems with OCTA is that too many millions are NOT spent on infrastufture/transportation directly. Aside from the 91 giveaway and the misspent millions on the Rail Network “studies” we need only to look at the improvements to the 22, the 5 and all the other smaller scale infrastructure improvements and conclude that overall Measure M has worked, though not perfectly.
And as for the slick mailers, guess what, that’s what wins votes.
CQT96. Thanks for your response. Having 25 years of experience in high technology contract negotiations with billion dollar firms I would never have caved in to the non-compete clause.
My reference to a “guarantee” was OCTA’s language, not mine. Larry Gilbert does not have a “pompous attitude” as stated by you. I still have their ballot argument from which that quote was taken.
Even OCTA admits that “the proposed Measure M may have to be refined and presented to the voters more than once.” Source. Frequently Asked Questions. Measure M Draft Renewal Plan.
They are correct. OCTA needs to go back to the drawing board starting with some “new” faces in charge.
Larry Gilbert
So, Larry, how would you like to see Measure M “refined”? More money for highways and less money for transit, or in other words, more time spent going nowhere in a car vs. less buses and trains that would actually move people.
Why extend the sales tax based measure M?
Why not charge the auto drivers direct for the costs of suppling them roads to drive on?
The gas tax money does not come near to providing the cost of owning and operating the freeways. Or all the other roads.