Measure M: No Fast Lane to Traffic Relief

Measure M, the proposed half-cent transportation sales tax on the Nov. 7 Orange County ballot, is like a new car being eyed by wary consumers.

Kick the tires and look under the hood. There’s something for everyone--both to like and dislike.

It’s a package that pays homage to Orange County’s love affair with the automobile, yet tempts those who might consider transit by bus or train.

Measure M would pay for widened freeways, new lanes reserved for car pools and buses, streamlined so-called super streets, rail transit, as well as growth management rules aimed at pacing development with traffic improvements.

The sticker price: An increase in the sales tax from the current 6 to 6 1/2 cents on the dollar--or $50 to $75 a year for every man, woman and child in Orange County. It is projected to raise $3.1 billion solely for highway and transit projects over 20 years.

But if voters approve Measure M, will Orange County residents have easier commutes? And what’s next if it fails?

Transportation improvements to be paid for under Measure M would relieve congestion for most commuters, traffic experts say. But not for everyone, not everywhere equally, and not for more than 20 years at best.

Economists, meanwhile, say Measure M would cost some retail sales jobs while boosting employment in construction trades. They also say a gasoline tax or user fee would be a better, more direct way of financing transportation projects, although neither could guarantee enough revenue to pay for the projects included in Measure M.

If Measure M fails, according to transportation experts, Orange County residents can look forward to some lean years in highway construction funding, worsening traffic congestion, and possibly year-by-year replays of Measure M on subsequent ballots.

The centerpiece of Measure M is a plan to widen the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) from six lanes to 12, including car-pool lanes and special ramps for multi-passenger vehicles and buses.

The measure earmarks $550 million to supplement expected state funding for the $1.6-billion project, plus $775 million for additional lanes on the Riverside, Orange, San Diego and Costa Mesa freeways.

“It’s pretty safe to say that the widening of I-5 will benefit the whole county,” said Steve Hogan, chief traffic planner at the Orange County Environmental Management Agency.

“Studies show that a vast majority of the county’s residents and businesses utilize the I-5 corridor. By the same token, most of the other freeway improvements in Measure M will have widespread impact on people.”

“It’s a long-overdue project,” said Genevieve Giuliano, associate professor of urban and regional planning at USC. “Given the behavior of people, particularly in Orange County, they’re going to use freeways and roads. And the investment per capita, out there, is very little. We really don’t have the infrastructure that we need to provide the level of service people expect and hope to use. . . .”

Added Barry Rabbitt, Caltrans’ deputy district director for the Interstate 5 corridor: “We have designed these projects to handle projected traffic in the year 2010, with a reasonable flow. . . . Most people will be free of severe congestion, at least until then.” In most areas there is bumper-to-bumper traffic, that would generally mean slow-downs but with traffic continuing to move, he said.

According to Manuel Puentes, transportation engineer for the Automobile Club of Southern California, Measure M’s improvements would enlarge the capacity of the existing freeway and road network. Planned improvements on the Santa Ana Freeway would increase the average daily vehicle capacity by 67%, Puentes said. Capacity would increase 33% on both the Riverside and Costa Mesa freeways.

Puentes cautions that such improvements may do nothing to reduce travel time during rush hour, but they could shorten the peak hours of congestion.

Puentes and other traffic experts praise Measure M’s attention to major regional roads, such as Beach Boulevard, which would be streamlined into “super streets,” as well as signal synchronization and street widening projects, all of which would get about $1 billion under the measure.

Although planners say there is no bias in favor of North or South County in Measure M’s spending plan, how much residents would benefit depends on where they live. For example, Brea residents are not likely to make regular use of a widened Interstate 5 south of Irvine. But they may use Imperial Highway, which is planned as a super street.

Said the county’s Hogan: “The money (for major surface streets) will be directed at problem locations . . . fixing it where it’s broken, and adding a few lanes where they happen to be missing.”

The Auto Club’s Puentes said such local street improvements are essential for the county’s transportation system to work. “Intersection management is a major component of Measure M . . . and as the county advances its arterial (highway) program and moves to eliminate bottlenecks and incomplete highways, there will be noticeable improvements.

“The cost savings to the user (in reduced fuel consumption and less automotive wear and tear) will be large-scale. The net benefit to the county as a whole (would be) several fold what the cost of these improvements was in the first place.”

Even with Measure M’s improvements, there still would be pockets of bumper-to-bumper congestion, at least during rush hours, typically from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m.

Some traffic engineers predict this is likely at the El Toro “Y,” where the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways converge, as well as on the San Diego Freeway just north of the Corona del Mar Freeway.

Rail projects that would be funded by Measure M are more speculative, with many details--and final costs--yet to be worked out.

Alan Havens, a transportation planner at the Southern California Assn. of Governments, a six-county regional planning agency, said Orange County must promote rail transit, partly to improve air quality, a requirement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Of $775 million earmarked in Measure M for transit projects, $630 million would be used for railroad right of way and commuter trains, as well as for planning high-tech projects such as people movers and monorails.

But that is where transportation experts divide.

Said USC’s Giuliano: “This is a political plan. People say in polls that they like trains, but then they don’t ride them. If I had my druthers, there would be no trains in Measure M, because I view them as an unproductive investment, except possibly for the LOSSAN Corridor. An upgrading of Amtrak service is cost effective, but I doubt that the other rail projects will be.”

The LOSSAN Corridor Agency is the official name of a three-county commission coordinating improved passenger rail service on the line linking Los Angeles and San Diego through Orange County.

Opponents of the sales tax increase say that, according to Measure M’s ridership projections, the one-time start-up cost for each passenger would be $108,000 or more. But economists say those figures are misleading, because ridership would grow over time, and no one has projected the average cost per trip and revenue from fares over 20 years.

Initially under Measure M, 2,000 new trips per day would be expected on two commuter trains that would be added to Amtrak service between San Clemente and Los Angeles, at a start-up cost of $108 million. Another 6,400 trips per day are estimated on a planned Riverside-Irvine commuter rail service along the Santa Ana River through Santa Ana Canyon. Such service would be limited to peak hours, at a start-up cost of about $130 million, to be split evenly with Riverside County.

While 6,400 trips doesn’t sound like much, traffic experts say it is the equivalent of adding 1 1/2 freeway lanes in each direction just to serve the morning and evening rush hours.

Economists, meanwhile, are split on Measure M.

Jim Doty, professor of economics at Chapman College in Orange, said he is leaning against the measure.

“In terms of the total impact on the economy, it’s not all that significant when you consider . . . it would negatively affect retail sales slightly because it will reduce consumers’ buying power, but (that) would be hard to measure,” Doty said.

“It’s prudent to say that it will shift jobs (from retail and service businesses). There will be some increase in jobs due to construction activity due to the increased demand for roads and public infrastructure.”

Doty is most bothered by the tax approach.

“A sales tax is the most inefficient means of taxation,” he said. “Maybe that’s the only tax source for political reasons, but it’s a regressive tax, and it’s a hidden tax. . . . A far more efficient tax is a user fee, such as increasing the gasoline tax.”

Doty said he may end up voting for Measure M, but only because state and federal matching funds are expected to double or triple the buying power of the one-half cent tax hike. Those matching funds may otherwise go to the 11 California counties where voters already have adopted sales taxes for transportation projects, including Riverside, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

Kenneth A. Small, a professor of economics at UC Irvine whose speciality is transportation, echoed Doty’s sentiments about using sales taxes for transportation projects.

“I’m a grudging supporter of Measure M because I think the measure builds in a number of reasonable compromises,” Small said. “We definitely need some more transportation financing in Orange County and this seems to be the best package we’re likely to get.”

Costa Mesa Councilwoman Sandra L. Genis, an urban planner for the city of Newport Beach and an opponent of the sales tax plan, criticizes Measure M’s growth controls as too little, too late.

However, Ray Catalano, a former Irvine councilman and urban planning expert who recently left UC Irvine for UC Berkeley, said: “It’s not as far as I’d like to go, but it’s the next best thing.”

Referring to last year’s slow-growth initiative, Measure A, he added: “We lost that battle. So what’s the answer? Doing nothing? Unless we get some money to do some fixes, we will get no solution.”

If Measure M fails, the county can expect lean times for roadway construction, and most freeway projects would be delayed five to 20 years, unless another source of funds is found, said the experts interviewed.

“I can’t even think about Measure M failing,” said Stanley T. Oftelie, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Commission. “We would have to go to transportation triage. We would have to start figuring out which projects can get immediate attention, and after that, which ones will die. . . .

Interstate 5 “would stay our No. 1 priority, but it would consume virtually every cent we get, and it will take 20 years--maybe even 30--to finish.”

WHAT MEASURE M WOULD PAY FOR

Measure M, the proposed half-cent sales tax increase for transportation projects, would raise $3.1 billion over 20 years. Projects that would be undertaken with passage, include:

On the Santa Ana Freeway, add three lanes in each direction from the San Gabriel River Freeway on the north to the San Diego Freeway on the south. One lane in each direction will be for car pools and buses. Improve interchanges along the Santa Ana Freeway, including the interchange serving the Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Orange freeways.

Cost: $550 million.

Rebuild the interchange of the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways, known as the El Toro Y.

Cost: $55 million.

On Interstate 5 from the El Toro Y to San Clemente, add one car-pool lane in each direction for a stretch of about 12 miles.

Cost: $80 million.

On the Costa Mesa Freeway, add one lane in each direction along a six-mile stretch from the Riverside Freeway on the north to the Santa Ana Freeway on the south.

Cost: $200 million.

Add one car-pool lane in each direction along 12 miles of the Orange Freeway.

Cost: $40 million.

Improvements along the Riverside Freeway including one car-pool lane in each direction from the Riverside County line to the Los Angeles County line, as well as improved freeway interchanges and soundwalls.

Cost: $400 million.

Improve key street-to-freeway interchanges.

Cost: $70 million.

Build a 220-mile network of “super streets,” using Orange County’s 21 busiest streets.

Cost: $120 million.

Coordinate traffic signals throughout the county.

Cost: $50 million.

Improve 100 of the most congested street intersections.

Cost: $100 million.

Street maintenance and local traffic improvement projects.

Cost: $450 million.

Expand Los Angeles-to-San Diego rail service, plan commuter train service between Riverside and Irvine and other transit projects.

Cost: $630 million

Require every city and the county to adopt comprehensive growth management plans to link traffic relief with future development.