ELECTIONS / PROPOSITION 156 : Road Projects Tied to Rail Bond Vote

Ventura County will lose as much as $26 million in promised state highway construction funds if voters across California reject Proposition 156, a $1-billion rail bond measure on the Nov. 3 ballot, officials said.

Failure of the bond measure would delay several major county highway projects because state officials would divert the county’s share of transportation dollars to other counties developing top-priority rail programs.

Ventura County already has received its share of rail money to begin the Metrolink service connecting Moorpark and Simi Valley to Los Angeles.

And, with rail programs guaranteed a minimum amount of state funding to keep them moving forward, Ventura County would be left to compete for the few transportation dollars left for highway improvements, said Ginger Gherardi, executive director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission.

“There is a lot of misinformation out there,” Gherardi said. “Voters think they are voting for a rail bond measure, but for Ventura County this is a highway measure.”

Proposition 156 is the second of three $1-billion statewide bond measures that are intended to pay for a host of rail projects throughout California. Voters approved the first measure, Proposition 108, in 1990 and the final measure will appear on the ballot in 1994.

But critics argue that rail projects are too expensive and that the state should not push more bonds to finance them during a recession.

“This is not the time to go further into debt, when the economy of California and the national economy are in trouble,” said Shirley Hughes of Thousand Oaks, chairwoman of the Ventura County chapter of Citizens Against Government Waste.

Hughes did not dispute the projected loss in transportation dollars; however, she objected to using them to drum up support for the measure. “The underlying message is that if we don’t take the money, it will go somewhere else or be lost . . . . It’s almost like a hidden threat.”

If Proposition 156 fails, the commission will reduce the amount of money each of the state’s 58 counties receives for highway improvements, said Robert Remen, executive director of the commission. Money would then be diverted to those counties with rail programs, Remen said.

Ventura County, which is part of the new Metrolink commuter rail system, has already received much of its rail money from Proposition 108. As a result, it would be among those counties to lose money for highway improvement projects, Remen said.

“The loss of the rail bond measure would mean a major restructuring of current program commitments in Ventura County,” Remen said.

He said the following highway projects would be reassessed and some would definitely be delayed by several years:

* The widening of California 126 from Fillmore to the Los Angeles County line. The 12-mile-long, $27.5-million project is scheduled to begin in the 1993-1994 fiscal year.

* The widening of the Ventura Freeway bridge over the Santa Clara River between Vineyard Avenue and Johnson Drive. Work on the $60-million project is due to begin in 1996-1997.

* Improvements to the Ventura Freeway and Seaward Avenue interchange. Groundbreaking on the $8.8-million project is planned for 1996-1997.

* Widening of the California 1 and Pleasant Valley Road interchange in Oxnard. The $31.4-million project is slated for 1996-1997.

* The widening of the Ventura Freeway’s Lewis Road interchange. Work on the $25-million project is scheduled to begin in 1998-1999.

Gherardi said she is concerned about Proposition 156 passing because there has been very little publicity about the need for the measure and because voters may be worried about incurring more debt during a recession.

“I’m not very optimistic,” she said. “In this county, anyone who reads the ballot arguments would think they’re voting on a rail measure,” Gherardi said. “I think it would be a lot easier for this to pass in Ventura County if people knew exactly what they were voting for.”

Gherardi pointed out last week that while other counties have generated additional transportation revenue through special half-cent sales tax measures, Ventura County now has no such mechanism.

She also said the state is often more willing to provide matching funds to counties that generate the extra transportation dollars through a sales-tax increase.

“It’s inevitable that we are going to have to look at the issue of a half-cent sales tax again,” Gherardi said. “It’s a major detriment to us in terms of our transit and highway programs.”

However, Gherardi declined to speculate when the Transportation Commission may again try to place a sales tax measure on the ballot.

“With the economic situation we’re in, I don’t think this is a good time to be looking at it,” she said.

Times staff writer Phil Sneiderman contributed to this story.