SANBAG's Norm King On Challenges Of Meeting San Bernardino's Transportation Needs

Norm, SANBAG, the San Bernadino Associated Governments, is adocating the placement of Measure I on the Nov. ballot, an effort to extend for 30 years the current half-cent sales tax ordinance that funds many of the region's transportation projects. Please give us a status report on both the effort and the initiative's prospects?

We have a good shot at Measure I passing, not that two-thirds is easy. Our current sales tax measure expires in 2010. So, it's time to make a commitment for the next thirty years. Riverside extended its sales tax commitment with a new 30-year measure that starts in 2009. And LA County has one-cent tax for transportation that essentially goes on in perpetuity. For our region, if this measure does not pass, we will be in a terrible and inferior situation for transportation as compared to our closest neighbors.

Our plan has the unanimous support of all of the 24 cities in our district and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

Elaborate on what exactly is contributing to the increases in congestion on the Inland Empire's transportation network.

I'll start from a broad scope. We continue to increase our population, but we also continue to increase the number of miles driven per capita every year. And that's a national trend, a state trend, and our trend here in this region. So it's not just the population growth contributing to expanded demand for transportation infrastructure. We as individuals are putting more demand on the system. And, add to that the special circumstances involved with goods movement – trucks and trains - that severely impacts our transportation system here in the Inland Empire and in Southern California.

Is there relief in sight? What does the Inland Empire and San Bernardino, expect from federal and state sources re new transportation funding?

The re-authorization of TEA-21 is before Congress now and there is some potential for an increase in funds to this region, but I don't think that will happen. There needs to be some adjustment to the gas tax. For that matter, both state and federal government need to bring back the purchasing power of the gas tax. Over roughly a 20-year period, the purchasing power of the gas tax has declined to 35% of what it was. That is because we are driving a lot more miles, but we are also driving those with much more efficient cars. And the gas tax is per gallon, not based on price. Of course, that is a good thing in many ways, but it is having a negative impact on the amount of money available for transportation investment from the gas tax. And so, as the gas tax becomes less valuable, we face a serious challenge in finding other sources of revenue simply to match our investment of rate 10 or 20 years ago.

At the state level, our problems stem from being overly optimistic about what the federal government might contribute to transportation investment and what certain revenue streams might be dedicated for transportation. Because of the state budget crisis, the Davis Administration began borrowing extensively from transportation funds, both the TCRP program and the Highway Funds, to help balance the budget.

Between the state and federal shortfalls, only about one half of our defined three-year program is funded a-going from about $9 billion to about $4.5 billion for new investment. Recovering this money will only get us back to what has been programmed already-not anything new.

Without new revenues coming in and the maintenance needs of our aging infrastructure increasing, there is less available for new construction. This is why we need a Measure I more now than ever-it is the only way we can control revenues and investment locally. Neither the feds nor the state can take it from us and it may well be the only source of new capital funding for transportation in the county going forward.

In his budget, Gov. Schwarzenegger adopted many of the Keston Institute's white paper recommendations to Secretary of BTH McPeak . In that paper, inspired by LAEDC Chair and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, user fees and tolls were suggested as a critical part of the strategy to address California's mobility crisis. What do you see as the purpose and viability of user fees and tolls being adopted as an element of our infrastructure investment strategy going forward?

There is no question that more direct user fees and congestion pricing are going to be both necessary and more common to finance infrastructure in the future, not just in Southern California, but in the nation. And, I don't see that as a bad thing. We are going to continue to need public investment in transportation. But, in order to increase mobility, we will also need investment in a direct user-paid transportation system such as toll lanes and potentially separated truck lanes, hopefully using time of day as a variable in the pricing equation.

When we speak of these charges, they most definitely are user fees. It's not just a matter of instituting tolls, but user fees would provide a mechanism whereby drivers who drive more would also pay more instead of relying on someone else to pay the bill. Auto insurance is another area where rates are biased against those who drive less. With the same car and same driving record, a driver who travels 30,000 miles a year pays substantially less per mile in insurance than a person who drives 3,000 miles a year. A fairly major component of the price of transportation, car insurance, is not priced in a way that causes the user to pay directly for the actual exposure to accident liability which is directly related to miles driven. It's also an example of a regressive system that provides an income transfer (via insurance premiums) from those who are less affluent to those who are more affluent based on our knowledge that the number of miles we drive is correlated to the scale of our income.

In Texas, they recognize that the gas tax just isn't going to do it. They are now building a much more extensive toll system to offer true choices to people. And, instituting tolls provides an economic incentive to double-up. One of the virtues of the 91-toll road in Riverside, now owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority, is that by providing incentives in the form of increased speed and mobility, it encourages people to double-up and pay the toll. And consequently, that stretch of freeway has the highest occupancy per vehicle of any stretch of freeway in the entire state.

In closing, you made reference to the importance of goods movement in this region. To compliment the many MIR interviews on this subject, share the Inland Empire's take on what's being done, what needs to be done, and what ought to be done regarding goods movement to and from our world class ports.

First of all, we need to include a regional approach that recognizes that all four counties are directly affected, sometimes in different ways, by truck and rail trips in and out of the ports. Today, we lack the kind of forum between the public and private stakeholders that would be beneficial in initiating practical solutions to the negative impacts of port traffic. There is a reason for that-much of the private sector is in competition with each other. I'm not saying that's bad, but in the context of this public/private dilemma, we do not have an effective forum to figure out a collaborative strategy.

Today, rail capacity is being pushed to its maximum. For every car that Metrolink takes off the freeway, there is a truck to replace it. We have common problems that delay goods movement as well as the average commuter. What we need to figure out is how we can provide increased access to the ports without inconveniencing everybody else. And one potential solution is to create a separate truck lane to segregate that traffic.

Also, we need to find the funds for new investment. Well over $3 billion is needed for the hundred or more grade separations needed in these counties to separate rail traffic originating at the ports from arterial roads. And let's understand for the most part, these grade separations would not be needed were it not for the port activity. Port activity is what creates the demand for the grade separations, yet each county has to pay for them.

Collectively, we need to create a financing mechanism, either directly from the federal government or with the authority of the federal government, to enable revenues to be raised that would mitigate the effect of this movement through our area. Perhaps it's a container fee, or an extension of the kind of container fee that financed the Alameda Corridor? That is one way to go if we get federal authority.

However, I don't think the federal government is going to give us the billions we need off the top, despite the need and the national interest. After all, why shouldn't there be a cost structure in place that puts the cost burden of mitigating our traffic and environmental issues on those who benefit from consuming the products that come through our ports? A container fee presumably would be charged back to whoever buys the goods.

We simply have to develop an outside financing mechanism to mitigate the negative effects of goods movement in Southern California. And, we're getting to the point where both the public and the private sector in the transportation arena recognize that.