Prop. 181 weighs traffic, affordability of clean air

It's fairly safe to say that traffic congestion and air pollution are problems most Californians would like to see vanish.

Supporters and opponents alike say that Proposition 181, the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act, could reduce commuter traffic and pollution and provide business with more methods to distribute their merchandise.

The argument is whether or not the state of California can afford the $1 billion the proposition would cost if approved.

The proposition is the last in a series since Proposition 108 passed in 1989. That act created a $1 billion bond for the state's rail programs.

It also allowed for two additional propositions of equal dollar amounts to be presented to voters in later elections. The second of those initiatives, Prop. 156, was rejected by voters in 1992.

Senator Marian Bergeson said Prop. 181 should be approved because it will help boost the state's economy, especially "if we're interested in completing a transportation plan to attend private investment," Bergeson said.

Bergeson said the state will have a problem attracting businesses if its rail systems remain the same and its highway's overload of traffic continues.

She added that an expanded commuter railing system would help decrease traffic gridlock, reducing the amount of air pollutants. Those opposing the bill agree that there is a need for an improved transportation system, but believe the state can't afford the proposition right now.

"I'm in support of improving our railing system," state Senator Robert Beverly said, "but due to the fiscal position of our state, I'm opposed to it (Prop. 181)."

Assemblyman Jim Costa, who authored Prop. 181, tried unsuccessfully to have the measure removed from the ballot.

"He withdrew because of the overall state of the economy," said Jesse Arreguin, a spokesperson from Costa's office. "At this point it would be best to wait until the economy improves."

Arreguin said the best way to have alternative transpiration is "to improve the commuter rail system because you will lessen people's dependency on the automobile."

Spokesperson Julie Stewart of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, said her agency is neutral on the measure.

Stewart said that the state's economy is on the upswing and that passage of the measure would not immediately impact the state's budget.

"It won't increase the debt of Californians until the bonds are sold," she said.

Stewart said if the measure passes, the state will then be able to make plans on how to improve the rail system.

"All the money from the first [proposition] hasn't been spent," she said.

If approved, state officials are to plan what projects in several preset transportation-related fields will receive funding. After planning is completed, the state will sell the bonds. By that time, the economy will have hopefully improved, Stewart said.

Or as the written argument against Prop. 181 in the state's voter pamphlet states: "When you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging!"

Voters will determine just how big a hole they think the state can afford on Nov. 8.