‘Wrong Road: No on 74’

I read with great concern your editorial opposing Proposition 74. Your editorial starts out most correctly by stating, “California needs new highways and repair work on existing roads.” Proposition 74 will help. It will provide the funds to speed up completion of hundreds of new highway projects throughout the state which would otherwise be delayed or not built at all. It will allow the state to raise highway construction funds as they are needed. It will also provide new funding to local governments for streets, roads and public transit.

The funding solutions to California’s transportation needs must of necessity come from a variety of sources. While the highway program of the 1950s was exclusively funded with state and federal gas taxes, the needs for the highway program of the 1980s are too great to rely on any one source. For example, local jurisdictions have increasingly contributed to state highway improvements through voter-approved dedicated sales tax measures, developer fees, assessment districts, and other innovative techniques. The federal government recognized the need for innovation by authorizing Orange County as one of seven pilot projects to proceed with a highway funded with tolls.

Just as local government and the federal government have turned to innovative funding techniques, state government must also be innovative. For the state to raise revenues sufficiently to bring the state highway construction program to the level of the 1960s, the state gasoline tax would have to be raised by over 10 cents a gallon; a similar increase would be needed for local street and road improvements. A gas tax increase of this magnitude could have undesirable impacts on the economy at large.

California voters have, in recent years, consistently approved bond measures as one device for funding capital improvements. California’s consistently high bond ratings indicate that bonding has been held within prudent levels. Proposition 74 would continue this practice and authorize an additional option in the efforts to raise sufficient funds to assure mobility and economic growth throughout California. A single bond measure for $1 billion is clearly not the ultimate solution, nor was it intended to be. However, it does provide a significant contribution toward California’s highway program.

KENNETH F. KEVORKIAN

Commissioner, California

Transportation Commission

Sacramento