Quick Collapse, Slow Crumble

Technology may have failed the Nimitz Freeway Oct. 17, but the entire California highway system has been the victim of two decades of political failure. The Nimitz collapsed in seconds; thousands of miles of California freeway are falling apart slowly and imperceptibly, but crumbling just the same. Some 40 motorists died in the ruins of the Nimitz; hundreds die on California highways every year because the roads are old and unsafe.

Obscure flaws and unanticipated events contributed to the Nimitz collapse. But the deterioration of the entire system is evident to almost any motorist on any day. The culprits are not just the past three governors or scores of California Transportation Department officials, but an entire political system that bought the idea that California could not afford to do better, or that Californians could get something for nothing, or that they could squeeze by with things the way they were.

Symbolically, Proposition 13 helped bring down the Nimitz Freeway and the Gann spending limits weakened the columns. Years of bare-bones budgets and pledges of no new taxes took their toll.

That was a major reversal because by the late 1960s, California had became a model state by building for the future. Since then, California has coasted, and squandered its previous investment in the process. The past year’s highway fund was not adequate even to keep up with essential repair and maintenance, let alone make any significant dent in the new facilities needed to deal with growth.

California reached its peak in highway spending in 1969 at $3.2 billion, as measured in 1987 dollars. By 1987, the figure had fallen to $1.4 billion. Per capita spending on highways was 50th in the nation. Since 1963, the gasoline tax had been increased only once, from 7 to 9 cents per gallon in 1983, and remained one of the lowest in the nation. Business leaders had recognized that the state’s transportation problem was becoming a severe threat to continued economic development.

The message finally got through to the Legislature and Gov. George Deukmejian. In 1989, they approved a proposed 10-year, $18.5-billion transportation finance program involving a gradual 9-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax, all linked to a relaxation of the Gann spending limits to be voted on in the June primary election.

The irony now is that raising emergency funds to repair earthquake damage to highways and other transportation facilities might jeopardize prospects for the June ballot measure. That is one reason that legislative leaders believe it might be better to raise the sales tax temporarily for earthquake repair rather than the gasoline tax. They fear that voters will be suspicious of attempts to put one gas-tax increase on top of another, even though one may be only temporary. And the leadership is considering moving the date for a vote on the $18.5-billion highway proposal from the primary election next June to a special election in December or January of this year, with the earthquake aid package included on the ballot.

Both ideas should be considered carefully as Deukmejian and the Legislature prepare for a special earthquake session in the coming weeks. Whatever course they choose, California voters need to understand that special earthquake assistance will not in any way alleviate the need for the general gasoline tax increase.

The temporary aid would include the cost of clearing away the Nimitz debris and of starting construction immediately on some replacement or alternate route. Both projects are vital to the short-term needs of the San Francisco Bay Area, struggling to recover from the trauma of disaster. The $18.5-billion package will provide California a transportation system for the future: a modern, balanced program of freeways, mass transit and traffic management strategies. Without it, the state will suffer incalculable long-term economic and social loss. The two programs should not be confused in any way. The state needs both.