PROPOSITION 156 : OK Sought on Another $1 Billion in Rail Bonds

By MARK A. STEIN

Oct. 23, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Traffic-weary voters stood California’s tax-hating reputation on its head two years ago by endorsing $3 billion in general obligation bonds to finance construction of rail transit systems from San Diego to the Mother Lode.

At the time, state officials said more money would be needed to keep the plan rolling. As promised, they’re back. Transit planners are asking voters Nov. 3 to approve Proposition 156, which would authorize another $1 billion in bonds to continue building subways, trolley lines and Amtrak intercity train routes.

Proposition 156 is the second of three $1-billion bond measures outlined in the original rail transit ballot measure approved by 56% of voters in 1990. A third and final $1-billion bond sale will be put before voters in 1994.

Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), chief proponent of the transit bonds, is hoping voters will continue to support rail transit despite the state’s weak economy--or perhaps because of it. Thousands of new jobs are promised by the proposition’s passage.

Most work would stem from construction of new lines. Proponents of the measure estimate that up to 70,000 jobs statewide may be created if it passes.

More than half the money from Proposition 156 will be set aside for projects in Los Angeles County, giving the ballot measure special appeal in the state’s most populous and politically potent county.

Local officials say Proposition 156 would pump about $120 million into transit projects that include the following: Oceanside-to-San Diego commuter rail, Oceanside-to-Escondido light rail, the San Diego Trolley’s extensions to Old Town and Santee, the trolley’s Mission Valley extension, and the Mid-Coast light rail extension.

Proponents--a well-financed and powerful coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, railroads and government officials--say the ballot measure is needed to finance transit and highway construction. They contend that these projects will help California accommodate growth, ease traffic congestion and cut air pollution.

“Traffic congestion is increasing in nearly every area of California,” said William M. Wilkins, executive director of the Road Information Project, a Washington-based highway research and advocacy group. “In some urban areas, there is literally no such thing as a commute rush hour. Freeways and surface streets are congested day and night.”

Critics, chiefly two Los Angeles urban planners, oppose spending more money on rail because they contend that trains are ineffective in California’s suburban sprawl and too expensive to build and operate. They say the same amount of money, invested in “first-class” bus systems, would move more people at a lower average cost.

“The $87 million a year we will have to spend to pay off the bonds will come right off the top of the (state) general fund,” said urban planner Ryan Snyder, a private transportation consultant. “That money could better be used for education or health care or almost anything.”

The money to be raised by selling these bonds has been earmarked by the California Transportation Commission for more than 20 rail transit projects, ranging from the proposed trolley line between Los Angeles and Pasadena to a new Bay Area Rapid Transit District subway in Alameda County.

Money from the bonds will not be enough to complete any project. Additional federal, state or local funds--such as those from the half-cent sales tax surcharges in San Diego and other counties--will be needed. More money will be required to subsidize service once the lines are built.

Bonds approved in 1990 have partially funded construction of Los Angeles County’s Green Line trolley and a BART subway extension in the Bay Area. They also helped to pay for two projects that are scheduled to be rushed into service a little more than a week before the election: a fourth daily San Joaquin intercity train between Oakland and Bakersfield on Sunday, and Southern California’s regional Metrolink commuter train service on Monday.

Snyder and other rail bond critics assert that these programs cost large sums of money, but take relatively few cars off the road. Although it was not built with rail bonds, they cite the Metro Blue Line as an example. That service requires $40 million a year in operating subsidies and takes about 7,000 cars a day off the street, Snyder says. By contrast, he says the aggressive effort to promote bus use and car pooling among workers at Warner Center in the San Fernando Valley costs $600,000 a year and removes about 10,000 cars.

Rail bond backers respond that buses and car pools are only partial answers to congestion. Trains also are needed, and ridership will grow as the system expands and becomes more convenient, as development patterns change to take advantage of rail transit, and as the cost of driving increases.

In addition to the funds earmarked for Los Angeles County, another $120 million is designated for rail projects elsewhere in Southern California: $56 million for trolley extensions in San Diego County, nearly $32 million for commuter trains in Riverside County, and $32 million to expand Amtrak intercity service to Ventura and Santa Barbara.

In addition to being promised these benefits, voters are being threatened with massive cuts in highway programs if the measure is rejected.

The California Transportation Commission, which sets priorities for transportation projects and allocates money to build them, has warned of “widespread restructuring” of priorities if Proposition 156 fails. The Department of Transportation, which builds and operates facilities, spoke of “significant readjustments” in the list of projects that will be built.

Both agencies said they assumed voter approval of the bonds when they prepared their latest seven-year State Transportation Improvement Program, which lists which road and rail projects will get built--and when. If Proposition 156 fails, the commission said it would drop the 1993 and 1994 bond measures from its plan and cut spending by $2 billion, or 23%.

The Road Information Project says that state contingency records show that 75% of the $2 billion in cuts would come from highway programs. California 30, a long-awaited third freeway between Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, would be jeopardized, as would $247 million in improvements to the Garden Grove Freeway in Orange County.

Proposition 156’s critics--chiefly Snyder and his former teacher, UCLA urban planning professor Martin Wachs--have had to rely on newspaper coverage, community debates and other free exposure to attack the proposal. Snyder said they have not sought to raise any money to press their attack.

Meanwhile, two committees supporting Proposition 156 have raised more than $435,000 from railroads, rail car manufacturers and organized labor to get the measure on the ballot and promote it.

The latest campaign filings show that through Sept. 30 most of the campaign money has come from three railroads. Santa Fe Railway Co. has given $200,000, Union Pacific Railroad has added $115,000 and Southern Pacific Transportation Co. has donated $35,000.

All three railroads are trying to sell hundreds of miles of under-utilized land and track to local governments for hundreds of millions of dollars, much of which would come from the rail bond program. These properties are earmarked for use on the transit projects promised in the proposition.

Proposition 156 boosters also received $50,000 from Morrison Knudsen Corp., which is building intercity rail cars for Caltrans and has shown an interest in building trolley cars for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. Both purchases rely on state rail bonds.

Other major contributors to the Proposition 156 campaign include railroad equipment suppliers and labor unions that could benefit from the expansion of rail transit in California.

Andrew LePage in San Diego contributed to this story.

Proposition 156

Proposition 156 asks voters to approve $1 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund the construction or expansion of urban and intercity rail transit projects throughout California. Here are the projects in Southern California and the amounts they would receive from this bond measure and another proposed in 1994.

STATEWIDE

Buy cars and locomotives for intercity service on Amtrak lines. $118 million.

Build platforms, eliminate rail-street intersections and improve train signals on the Los Angeles-Fresno-San Francisco-Sacramento intercity route. $92.2 million.

Install double tracks and build a new bridge on the Los Angeles-San Diego intercity and commuter route. $28 million.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Construct an intercity train maintenance facility. $12 million.

Build a Metro Green Line branch to Los Angeles International Airport. $77.4 million.

Extend the Metro Blue Line from Los Angeles to Pasadena. $316.6 million.

Continue the Metro Red Line from Hollywood to North Hollywood. $95 million.

Construct an east-west rail line in the San Fernando Valley. $496.5 million.

Expand Metrolink commuter rail service. $29.5 million.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Expand Metrolink commuter rail service. $31.7 million.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Extend the East Line trolley to Santee. $5 million.