Will Price Increases, Other Gas Taxes Kill Measure M?

First there was Prop. 111, which raised the price of gasoline sold in California by a nickel a gallon on Aug. 1. A day later, Iraq invaded Kuwait and set off a Middle East crisis that has increased the price of gasoline by more than 23 cents a gallon. Now come federal budget negotiators who propose to raise the federal gasoline tax by 10 cents a gallon to reduce the federal deficit.

How much can consumers take? Will a consumer backlash over the cost of gasoline doom Orange County’s Measure M, the proposal for a half-cent tax on all retail sales to help pay for traffic improvements?

It depends on who is answering the question. Asked what effect the proposed federal tax might have on Measure M’s chance for success, supporters and opponents expressed sharply different views Monday.

“It will have no effect at all,” said Bruce Nestande, a member of the California Transportation Commission and a Measure M supporter. “People will understand that (the federal tax increase) is for deficit reduction and doesn’t build roads.”

Countered Measure M critic Tom Rogers: “Oh my God, will it have an effect? (Measure M) is in the category of dead and buried.”

Actually, the proceeds from the proposed federal tax increase would be split between the highway trust fund and reducing the deficit, thereby raising the possibility that some funds could be spent on federal highway projects, including a few in Orange County. However, existing highway trust funds have remained unspent as part of a strategy to make the federal deficit appear smaller than it is, transportation officials say, so pouring more dollars into the fund may not result in new highway construction.

Rogers, a San Juan Capistrano rancher who is leading the opposition to Measure M, said the public is already dubious about imposing another gasoline tax for transportation projects. “People already think there’s enough money (for transportation) out there,” Rogers said. “They’re not about to tax themselves some more.”

Nestande, however, said surveys conducted for the pro-M campaign since the state tax increase and the Mideast crisis took hold show that 57% of voters support the measure.

The proposed 10-cent-a-gallon federal tax increase on gasoline is part of a massive federal deficit-reduction package that budget negotiators hammered out over the weekend. The first 5-cent increase would take effect Dec. 1, with a second increase taking effect on July 1, 1991.

Congress is expected to act on the plan before Oct. 19.

Measure M would raise about $3.1 billion for freeway, transit and road improvements over a 20-year period.

If the measure passes, a citizens’ oversight committee would monitor compliance with the spending plan contained in the measure. That plan calls for $550 million to widen the Santa Ana Freeway from six lanes to 12 and $50 million to rebuild the El Toro “Y” where the San Diego and Santa Ana freeways meet. The rest of the money would be divided among other freeway improvements, commuter rail service, automated guideway (that is, monorail or people mover) systems, traffic management and local street work.

Some critics, however, contend that growth-management language contained in the ballot measure is too weak, and others complain that some of the projects are not worthwhile.

Measure M opponent Alan Beek of Newport Beach said a federal gasoline tax increase would help defeat the county proposal. But, Beek added, “it’s not enough to make me give up and not do any work against Measure M.”

The measure’s supporters, though, said that they will be helped politically by the fact that none of the proceeds from the proposed federal gasoline tax--at least as far as they know--will go for local road projects.

“If the 10-cent gas tax were going to transportation and if the money was going to be spent on local projects, we’d have to reassess our chances and even the need for Measure M,” said Dana W. Reed, chairman of the Orange County Transportation Commission. But the federal tax “won’t make it any easier to get to work in the morning,” Reed said.

Reed said that at first blush, he too thought a federal tax increase would hurt Measure M’s chances but that now he is convinced otherwise.

“The Orange County electorate is extremely smart,” Reed said. “The voters will understand.”

“In fact,” he added, “if the federal tax is going to make it more expensive to drive a car, people should know that a substantial portion of Measure M would go to mass transit and thus provides an attractive alternative.”