Bond Defeats Delay Rail Expansion Plans : Transit: San Fernando Valley east-west rail line and the Blue Line to Pasadena could be affected.

At the dawn of the 1990s, Californians seemed poised for a major expansion of their transportation network and ready to make the down payment on a mammoth rail system that would help divorce people from their cars.

By a surprising margin, voters approved a doubling of gasoline taxes--9 cents per gallon--and authorized nearly $3 billion in bonds to pay for rail expansion.

Now, a scant four years later, the voters are demonstrating a change of heart.

Their refusal in three elections, including the one Nov. 8, to approve bond issues totaling $4 billion has put the program in such perilous financial straits that, officials say, many transportation projects will have to be delayed three to four years and no new ones can be considered until 1998.

“There is no question that absent some radical injection of revenue . . . these bond failures are going to have a significant impact on our transportation program,” said Mark Watts, undersecretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

In Los Angeles, the loss of revenue could delay by years rail projects such as the east-west San Fernando Valley rail line and the expansion of the Blue Line to Pasadena. Highway projects that could be affected include the extension of the Foothill Freeway in the San Gabriel Valley and the completion of a system of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes along the San Diego Freeway.

As much as anything else, the transportation program embarked on four years ago with the rosy promise that it would modernize the system for the 21st Century has become the victim of California’s earthquakes, economic recession and voter disgruntlement.

The earthquakes, both Loma Prieta in 1989 and Northridge in January, heightened the need to strengthen vulnerable bridges, causing retrofitting costs to soar from about $750 million in 1990 to more than $2.5 billion today. At the same time, the economic recession caused both gasoline tax revenues and federal transportation dollars contributed to California to be much lower than expected.

Voters delivered another blow to the program in 1992, when they rejected Proposition 156, a $1-billion bond issue to finance rail projects. The California Transportation Commission had approved projects in anticipation that the bonds would pass.

In June, voters defeated a $2-billion issue proposed by Gov. Pete Wilson to help pay for the retrofitting. And on Nov. 8, voters struck down Proposition 181 as they registered their dissatisfaction with taxes and spending. The proposal would have authorized another $1-billion bond issue for rail programs.

“I don’t think these were really anti-transportation votes,” said commission Chairwoman Octavia Diener. “I think they were priority votes, the priority being, ‘Let’s get the economy back in shape and then we can start having visions of high-speed rail and an improved transportation system.’ ”

Donald Camph, a transportation policy consultant in Culver City, saw the defeat as part of an overall negative mood by voters toward spending, with transportation funding an easy target.

“I think they are generally saying no to government, no to government spending, no to government programs,” he said. “That seems to be the message across the board. They’re turning down a lot of stuff they never have before.”

The setbacks have left the state transportation program with an estimated $4.5-billion financial hole. Officials say they have only one clear way to deal with it.

Instead of finishing the program in seven years, it will have to be stretched out over at least 12 years. Instead of adding new projects every two years, new projects won’t be added until 1998, at the earliest.

As the bad financial news hit local transportation agencies statewide, many, including the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, began searching for ways to avoid the delays.

Linda Bohlinger, the MTA’s deputy executive officer for capital planning, said her agency is investigating whether it can front load some of its projects with local money. That way, the local share of the costs would be paid in the early stages of each project, with the hope that by the time the local money ran out, state funds would be available.

She said the MTA staff expects to have a recommendation in time for a Dec. 16 board workshop on financial planning. It will be especially important, she said, to find ways to keep the two rail projects--the extension of the Blue Line and the construction of the San Fernando Valley rail line--on track.

In the meantime, Diener said the financial crisis has put more pressure on government to come up with alternatives to fund transportation, particularly rail projects. State Transportation Secretary Dean Dunphy is expected in a few weeks to appoint a blue-ribbon task force to make recommendations on state transportation financing.

Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said one issue that can no longer be ignored is the unreliability of gasoline taxes as a funding source for transportation projects. As cars become more efficient and use less gasoline, gas tax revenues have either held steady or risen much slower than projections.

The emergence of electric cars and other vehicles using alternative fuels in the future will only exacerbate the situation because they pay no gas taxes. “The current system isn’t going to work,” Katz said. “We can’t just keep increasing the gas tax. I don’t think the public has an appetite for it.”