A Small Step for Transportation

Gov. Gray Davis’ $5-billion state transportation plan is a first step toward easing California highway gridlock. Combined with hoped-for local and federal matching funds, the package would total $15 billion. But it represents only a small gain, considering the state’s staggering need for as much as $150 billion in work over the next two decades.

The state’s money would include $2.8 billion from the state budget over the next four years and a $2.2-billion bond issue that would have to be approved by voters in November.

California’s neglected transportation system demands a bigger investment--one that the state is uniquely able to afford right now. The Legislature should consider putting more of the existing budget surplus, which may run $10 billion, into the mix. For the longer haul, lawmakers should also consider dedicating a bigger portion of the state sales tax on gasoline to transportation.

A Davis spokesman’s description of his initiative as “historic” is mostly press office hype. In 1990, Californians approved a gasoline tax boost of 9 cents a gallon, which produces about $1.5 billion a year for highway projects. Davis refuses to consider any plan that hints of further tax increase. But if there is to be any real mitigation of gridlock, cities and counties will need continuing help from somewhere.

The special sales taxes that most larger counties have enacted for transportation begin expiring soon, except for Los Angeles County’s permanent Proposition A. Although originally approved by majority vote, these county levies now can be extended only by a two-thirds vote. Davis should reconsider his opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment (SCA 3) that would allow voters to continue the taxes by majority vote. There have been recent indications that Davis might agree to a compromise of 55%.

Davis, in announcing his plan, properly emphasized projects such as transit and carpool lanes designed to ease commuter congestion. This is especially true in the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area, the two of which would get a total of $1.5 billion of the $5 billion, compared with $2.2 billion for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Silicon Valley executives strongly lobbied Davis, arguing that easing traffic is vital to the economic health of their industry. However, by listing specific projects, Davis builds political support but also overrides some of the priorities already set by local and state transportation planners. In the future, Davis ought to let the experts set transit priorities.

Even if the Davis plan is far from a solution for all the state’s transportation woes, we commend the governor for his effort and urge him to carry over the momentum to longer-term needs, along with creative ways to finance them.