A New Day Dawns for Rail Transport as the Highway Lobby Climbs Aboard : California: Rail is no longer a dirty word--trains, even trolleys, are viewed as allies in the fight against congestion and smog throughout the state.

John Geoghegan, the Deukmejian Administration secretary of business, transportation and housing, recalls the time in the 1960s when he was a city manager in Alameda County trying to promote funds for mass transit:

“I used to attend meetings of the highway-users conference. Any time someone brought up the subject of gas-tax money for transit purposes, most of the people in the room would bristle. Money for transit had to come out of the fare box, period. What’s happening today would have been considered heresy. Those in the so-called highway Establishment now realize that they have to subsidize transit.”

Over the past few years, a dramatic change in thinking has risen among general contractors, oil companies, truckers, auto clubs and others who move the freeway lobby in California. Rail is no longer a dirty word. Trains and trolleys, along with buses, are viewed as an ally in the fight against congestion and smog.

The Planning and Conservation League has qualified a $2-billion rail-bond issue for the June ballot by initiative--and there is as yet no organized opposition to the plan designed to promote development of a European-style intercity rail system in California.

More significantly, Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, the $18.5-billion transportation package to be placed on the June ballot by Gov. George Deukmejian and the Legislature, authorizes for the first time a diversion of gasoline-tax funds to mass transit. In addition to a $1-billion bond issue for transit, another $8 billion could be used for bus or rail lines at local and state option.

The pro-rail slant of SCA 1 represents a major shift in attitude by Deukmejian, who came into office proposing that the state halt support for intercity rail service failing to meet specified fare-box tests. Just four years ago, the Administration was still operating on the theory that gridlock wasn’t a big enough threat to warrant massive state intervention.

But the Administration’s transportation policies went through a transformation in Deukmejian’s second term. The governor saw that the state couldn’t build enough roadways to beat congestion. County after county voted to increase the sales tax to provide more money for both highways and transit expansion. Amtrak trains started running at capacity. New trolley systems were built in San Diego, San Jose and Sacramento, and construction on a backbone system was started in Los Angeles.

When the World Series earthquake struck the Bay Area, the freeway system failed but BART trains kept running. Rail advocates claim that the state needs to build more “redundancy” into its transportation network to prepare for such emergencies and to fight gridlock and air pollution.

Polls show the public is willing to spend money for transit facilities; the city of Sacramento is even considering the levy of a tax to support its bus and light-rail system. County sales-tax increases have generally been successful only when the proceeds are earmarked for both transit and highway improvements.

Most of California’s transit-development activity has happened at the local level over the past two decades, with some financial support from the federal government. The entry of the state into the transit picture is quite recent.

Edmund G. (Pat) Brown Sr., who left office in 1966, was the last governor to push a major transportation program. His successors, Ronald Reagan and Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., made no effort to increase funds available for the building of freeways, let alone rail lines. State highway construction funds were earmarked largely for completion of interstate highways financed heavily by the federal government.

With gridlock approaching and the smog problem unresolved, Deukmejian found himself under heavy pressure to increase gasoline taxes for highway construction. Until last year, he resisted, preferring to see counties raise sales taxes.

But last year, Deukmejian saw the need for a major transportation initiative, and he attempted to develop a consensus on a ballot proposal. When the dust settled, transit for the first time in recent state history was recognized as a legitimate partner for highways, even by those in the so-called freeway lobby.

There were economic reasons. As Gerald H. Meral, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, points out, “The entire Sacramento light-rail system was built for less than the cost of a single proposed freeway interchange in Walnut Creek--a Riverside-Orange County commuter rail line would be even cheaper.”

But the main reason for the breakthrough was a fundamental change in the political dynamics of transportation. The pro-freeway forces became so frustrated about getting nothing that they were willing to abandon their stranglehold on all gas-tax proceeds.

The California Trucking Assn. was faced with a proposed ban on daytime truck operations in the heart of Los Angeles. The association started to see transit as an ally in preserving freedom of movement. The general contractors wanted transportation business, and they no longer cared what form it took. “Anything is better than nothing,” observed Roy Heatly of the Construction Awareness Program. “Political reality has set in.”

A generational transition also took shape during the years when all was relatively quiet on the transportation front. Old highway Establishment die-hards retired. Their replacements didn’t have their feet so deeply buried in concrete on funds for mass transit.

Robert H. Nida, vice president and general counsel for the Automobile Club of Southern California, spans both generations. He says there is still a reservoir of thinking that gasoline-tax funds should never be diverted to transit. “But that issue isn’t at the fighting edge. The old highway and transit lobbies don’t exist any more,” he said. “Maybe if there are no big fights, values change. There are overwhelming needs. We need everything--and more.” Deukmejian and other sponsors of the June ballot package, which includes a 9-cents-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax, have been attempting to neutralize opposition among groups as diverse as land developers and the California Teachers Assn. But none of the opposition has dealt with perhaps the most significant implication of this year’s vote--the inauguration of a true partnership for rail in the state’s transportation future.

If voters approve the entire program, including two bond issues for transit, the state will be committed to connecting all California urban centers with frequent rail service roughly comparable with the Amtrak line now running between Los Angeles and San Diego. In addition, a huge new source of funds will be made available for the expansion of train and bus service throughout the state.

Just a few years ago, it would have been ridiculous to suggest that such a plan would be presented to the voters with the support of the highway Establishment. But things are different now.