Measure M Would Right Past Wrongs : * County Can’t Afford to Keep Ignoring Traffic Crisis

Orange County’s housing boom of recent decades left it unequipped to deal with the transportation crisis that accompanied all the new development. Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for county transportation improvements which is on the ballot in November, is really about righting past wrongs.

In the southern part of the county, in particular, new building was waved through in the 1970s and 1980s without sufficient attention to the implications for countywide traffic congestion. The congestion is so serious now that the Orange County Transportation Commission has estimated that it would take $20 billion just to get a transportation system in place that could adequately handle traffic levels of the mid-1980s.

Nobody is arguing that that kind of money could ever be found to make transportation improvements. But when combined with other local, state and federal money, Measure M would make a big difference by earmarking $3.1 billion over 20 years for various freeway and road projects, and for transit improvements. For example, the county would become eligible to receive its considerable share of additional money from two state rail bonds passed last spring.

The county twice before has turned down similar measures designed to begin addressing the problem. The failure to vote affirmatively now, as has been done by every other urban county in the state and by all Orange County’s neighbors, has had the effect of a shot in the foot. The county has rendered itself ineligible for crucial matching funds, and has seen its stock fall precipitously before the powerful California Transportation Commission, which makes important decisions on the allocation of transportation funds to counties.

Passage of Measure M this time can make enough of a difference to provide some breathing space on county roads, and to afford a window for the county to begin planning more wisely for its future development.

The choice is really whether to do nothing other than basic repairs as the transportation crisis grows worse, or whether to relieve some pressure on the system in a meaningful way. You can blame the county planners for what has happened, but then where are you? It’s the residents who must live with past decisions. It is they who will notice a significant difference in their daily travels if they pass Measure M.

Failure to act will simply boomerang on the voters, dooming them to endure an inadequate transportation system that has sprung up from poor planning. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the cities and the county could agree on anything better than Measure M to address transportation problems that only will get worse. So voters should understand that if they don’t act, they will have the status quo, at best.

Without Measure M, many state transportation officials and legislators will continue to regard Orange County with a different sort of measure--a measure of contempt for failing to do its fair share.