GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 85Thus, within thirty years of numerous automotive-related companies,among them General Motors, Standard Oil of California, and Firestone Tireand Rubber, being found by a federal grand jury to have successfully conspiredto dismantle electric streetcar systems in forty-five U.S. cities, including LosAngeles, San Francisco, and New York (Snell 1974; Yago 1984, chap. 4; Bottles1987), a major California city was financing the creation of a fixed-railsystem. As outlined by Whitt, however, this rail system was specifically initiatedand designed to relieve congestion in the central city district, and facilitatetravel to it. It was not a comprehensive effort to provide a citywide publiclyfinanced rail system—one that could free many from the automobile.Proposition 18, however, would have made a substantial amount ofmoney available for the development and operation of mass transportationthroughout the state. This proposition would have allowed the state legislatureto use an unspecified amount of highway trust fund dollars for the purposeof “control of environmental pollution caused by motor vehicles” (asquoted in Whitt 1982, 105). Additionally, “the proposition would have givenvoters in local areas the option of using up to 25 percent of the [the highwaytrust fund] revenues collected in their city or county for mass transit purposes.”Whitt (1982) aptly notes that “Proposition 18 was a mild measure:local voters could elect to continue using all local funds for streets and roads,or could use a maximum of one-fourth of those funds for mass transit” (105).Nevertheless, the proposition created the potentiality of having significantfunds diverted from the highway trust fund toward the building and operationof fixed-rail transportation. The highway trust fund was created in 1938, andis financed through a gasoline tax and automobile licensing fees. Its fundswere constitutionally designated for highway construction and maintenance.Once Proposition 18 received two-thirds of the legislature’s approval asrequired for a state constitutional amendment, it was placed on the ballot.Unlike the BART bond issue, the campaign in favor of Proposition 18 “wasorganized by civic and environmental groups.” Specifically, “the main drivingforces behind the organization of [the pro-proposition] campaign were theSierra Club and TARDAC [the Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Associationof California].” In addition, “the Coalition for Clean Air, representingvarious environmental groups in Southern California, provided volunteerlabor” (Whitt 1982, 107).While a number of organizations expressed support for Proposition 18,including the League of Women Voters, the California Medical Association,League of California Cities, and Californians Against Smog, “virtually allbusinesses that announced a position were opposed.” Joining the AutomobileClub of Southern California and numerous major oil companies inopposition, were the California State Chamber of Commerce, and the CaliforniaReal Estate Association (Whitt 1982, 111–112). Notably, the LosAngeles Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the proposition, but