Prop. A Would Expand Transportation System

As the possibility of Los Angeles-style traffic anarchy grows with each new car that hits the county’s roads, voters will go to the polls Nov. 3 to decide the fate of a little-publicized initiative that will shape the long-term future of the county’s transportation network.

At stake in the vote on a sales tax increase known as Proposition A is a major aspect of the carefree quality of life San Diegans hold so dear. The outcome will have a very definite effect on how long motorists spend in daily traffic jams as the county’s population heads toward 3 million during the next 20 years, experts say.

“It’s very important to the future of transportation,” said Lee Hultgren, director of transportation for the San Diego Assn. of Governments, which supports Proposition A. “We’ve seen such a significant increase in travel in San Diego over the past two decades, and we’re looking at more of the same over the next two decades.”

Too Close to Call

While backers of the measure are organized and well-financed, and opponents have no money or campaign committee, the result of the vote is still too close to call because of residents’ traditional reluctance to increase their taxes, supporters say. With just 15 days until the vote, many residents know little about the initiative.

“I feel right now that it will pass if we’re able to get our educational material out to the voters,” said Carol Bentley, deputy campaign manager of Citizens for Better Transportation, the committee backing the initiative. “If the election were held right now, with what the voters know about it, it’s a tossup.”

Proposition A asks county residents to add half a percent to the current 6% sales tax to raise an estimated $2.25 billion over the next 20 years. After 20 years, the tax would be rescinded.

The money raised through Proposition A would be divided evenly to pay for highway projects, public transit and local road improvements.

The $750 million in revenue for highways would be combined with an estimated $85 million in federal, state and local funds and spent on the arteries that link up the region’s freeway system. Highway projects that would be funded, for example, include the widening California 78 from Oceanside to Escondido; extending California 52 from Tierrasanta to Santee, and widening California 54, the South Bay freeway, to eight lanes.

Public Transit

Public transit money would be spent to expand the regional trolley system; to establish commuter rail service from Oceanside to San Diego and from Oceanside to Escondido, and to subsidize transit passes for senior citizens, the disabled and students.

The region’s cities and towns also would receive shares of a $750-million local roads fund based on a formula that combines population and road mileage. The money would be spent on a list of local road improvements drawn up by each municipality.

Another $1 million per year would be set aside to build bicycle lanes throughout the county.

Backers maintain that the improvements are essential just to catch up with the runaway growth that the county has experienced during an era when state and federal funds for transportation improvements have virtually dried up. The growing frustration of motorists on portions of roads such as Interstates 8 and 15 and California 78 is graphic evidence of the need for transportation improvements, they said.

“What we’re trying to do is play catch-up, to make up for the problems generated by past growth,” Bentley said. “If we put up the stone wall (around the county) and said ‘no one else can come in,’ we (still) would need this.”

Future State of Roads

SANDAG statistics about the current and future state of the road system fill out the picture. Consider just a few of them:

- As county population growth jumped 21% to 2.2 million between 1980 and 1987, the total miles traveled by vehicles increased 50% on freeways and 30% on surface streets.

The average daily trips taken on portions of some roads have more than doubled. There were 43,500 daily auto trips on California 78 between Centre City Parkway and North Broadway in January, 1987, 170% more than in January, 1980. The number of trips on Interstate 15 between California 163 and Clairemont Mesa Boulevard increased 152%, to 70,000, during the same time.

- County motorists are driving more. From 1966 to 1986 the number of vehicles per household rose from 1.3 to 2.0. The number of trips per household increased from 8.3 to 10.4. The length of a trip to work increased from 8 miles to 10.6 miles. And the number of occupants in each vehicle declined 12%.

If the present looks bad, the future could be nightmarish. Despite recently enacted building caps, there will be 8% more traffic on the freeways every year because of in-migration, the aging of the baby boom, and changing driving habits, SANDAG’s statistics show.

Under the best scenario, one in which all the planned improvements are completed, the county’s total number of heavily congested freeway miles will increase from nine in 1985 to 33 in 2005 (when San Diego will be home to more than 2.8 million people). If nothing is done, heavy congestion will plague 78 miles of our freeways, according to a SANDAG study.

“It gets worse,” Hultgren lamented. “What can I say? It’s going to get worse.” Even with the new construction, some stretches of freeway will carry as much traffic as they do today.

If the sales tax passes, relief for heavily traveled Interstate 8 and California 94 is scheduled to come from the newly-built arteries such as California 56, which would ultimately run from North City West to California 67.

Interstate 5 will benefit from the commuter rail service and trolley service as far north as North City West. On Interstates 15 and 805 in the South Bay, high occupancy vehicle lanes now under construction would be traveled by more express buses paid for by the increased tax revenue.

Opponents of the ballot proposal are quick to acknowledge that the traffic situation is bad enough that they, too, want to see the transportation improvements made. But they are convinced that without corresponding limits on growth, the tax measure will only spur future development. They also believe that a sales tax is a regressive way to fund the transportation projects.

Catch-Up Programs

“You’re going to wind up, after all this money is spent, with worse than the status quo if we don’t start working on serious growth limitations,” said Brooke Eisenberg, a Del Mar council member who signed the ballot statement opposing the tax.

“We feel that part of the taxation during the 20 years will pay for catch-up projects and we have no argument with that,” said Howard Greenebaum, chairman of the fledgling North County Slow Growth Alliance and an announced candidate for Congress. “What we are opposed to is that part of it will pay for future development.”

But Greenebaum could cite no specifics about how the measure will spur growth. In contrast, a SANDAG study of five Sun Belt cities showed no correlation between growth and an extensive freeway system. Hultgren called a transportation network a minor factor in a family’s decision to move to any particular city.

Opponents also call the sales tax regressive because it assesses the poor and elderly at the same rates as the rich, in part, they note, to pay for transit subsidies for the elderly.

They also warn of other sales taxes that could be enacted in the not-too-distant future: another half a cent for county jails and a 1-cent statewide levy to fund long term nursing home care that is now under consideration by the Legislature. County residents may soon find themselves paying 8 cents on the dollar for purchases, Eisenberg said.

Big Campaign Purse

In purely political terms, the contest between backers and opponents of Proposition A is about as fair as the fight between NFL owners and their striking players. Led by James Mills, former president pro tem of the state Senate and current head of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, Citizens for Better Transportation has amassed about $225,000. Mills and Bentley have addressed nearly 200 audiences since July.

The group is planning to send geographically targeted mailers to 200,000 likely voters, touting the benefits of the transportation project slated for each voter’s region. Virtually every elected representative on the local, state and federal levels has endorsed the measure, along with groups such as the League of Women Voters, the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego Taxpayers Assn.

Opponents have no campaign committee, have not raised a dollar and are counting on the news media to make their views known to the public. Their allies include the United Taxpayers of San Diego, a 150-member coalition of small taxpayers and the Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn.

Financial backers of the proposition include a heavy concentration of real estate brokers (whose political action committee donated $25,850 as of the last financial disclosure filing date), banks, developers, investment firms and other companies. Mills can call on connections like the one he has with Ken Cory, his former Assembly aide and former state controller, from whom he solicited a $10,000 donation on behalf of the New York-based investment banking firm of Donaldson, Lutken and Jenrette, where Cory now works.

Opponents have no such clout and must rely instead on factors such as traditional anti-tax sentiment and a low voter turnout--elements that killed a similar Orange County tax measure in 1984. During the 1980s, one other county, Contra Costa, has turned down such a transportation measure. Eight counties have approved them.

A poll taken by Proposition A backers in August showed that the measure would have received 45% to 55% of the vote if the election were held then. Undecided voters were the second largest bloc of voters, followed by opponents, Mills said. With a low voter turnout expected, the measure could pass or fail based on who gets to the polls, he added.

“Our poll shows that this is winnable,” Bentley said, “but it also shows that people need to be informed about it.”

MP, Los Angeles Times