CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: PROPOSITION 125 : Gas Tax Would Be Used for Rail Service

In a year when several initiatives would, if adopted, bring massive complicated changes in state laws, Proposition 125 is narrow in its effect and to the point: The measure would free up gasoline tax money to improve commuter rail service.

Voters in 1974 approved the use of gas taxes for building rail lines. Now voters are being asked whether the gas taxes also can be used to buy rail passenger cars and locomotives for intercity service.

Transportation officials say a short supply of so-called rolling stock--passenger cars and locomotives--has been a major impediment to the lengthy and costly process of improving commuter rail service.

Bonds totaling $3 billion have been approved this year to enhance rail service in the state. Commitments also have recently been made by state authorities to begin extensive commuter service in and out of Los Angeles and other urban centers by 1993. But proponents of the measure maintain that the needs are well beyond what has already been provided.

The main question surrounding Proposition 125 is whether its passage would substantially reduce the amount of money available to build highways--currently the most extensive use of gas tax money.

In a recent communication to its members, the Automobile Club of Southern California, which opposes the measure, contended that it undermines commitments given to voters in the Proposition 111 campaign last spring that money raised by increasing the gas tax would go to relieve traffic congestion and to build and improve highways.

“Even after passage of Proposition 111, gas tax funds remain inadequate to cover the current deficiencies in our road and highway system,” the Auto Club statement said. “By increasing the demands on gas tax funds, Proposition 125 will make the problem worse. To fund necessary highway projects, local jurisdictions may be forced to turn to toll roads, resulting in a double tax burden on motorists.”

Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), sponsor of the legislation that put Proposition 125 on the ballot, counters that the measure “does not affect highway funding in any way.”

“It does not increase nor decrease the amount of fuel tax funds allocated for transit capital purposes by the Legislature,” he said recently. “It simply allows more flexibility on the part of local transit agencies in making decisions as to what rail capital expenditures are undertaken.” Currently, he noted, all rail capital expenditures are authorized except for rolling stock. Allowing money to be spent for this purpose is the only change, he said.

Until now, the rail allocation has been only a small share of the gas tax revenues, this year amounting to $64 million. If there were to be more political support for rail construction as opposed to highways, this could grow.

Aside from Costa, support for the measure is coming from Cindy McKim, head of the rail division at Caltrans, who views it as adding needed flexibility to rail funding. “The bonds are a one-time-only jump-start on our rail program,” she said.

Other backers include Gerald H. Meral, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, the sponsor of one of the rail bond measures approved by the voters in the June primary; Kirk West, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, and William E. Leonard, chairman of the California Transportation Commission.

Opponents include the chairman and immediate past chairman of the Libertarian Party of California, Gail Lightfoot and John Vernon.

No major campaign expenditures are expected from either proponents or opponents of the measure.