Senator Alan Lowenthal Laments Governor's Veto of SB 974; Endorses L.A.'s Measure R

On October 1, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 974, a measure that would have placed a fee on cargo containers entering the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland, with the revenue divided between funding for rail-related cargo infrastructure projects and environmental mitigation measures. Would you, given how long and hard you worked on SB 974, share your reaction to the governor's veto?

I was tremendously disappointed. I thought that the governor's veto message was disingenuous. He raised issues that, while they are important, had nothing to do with the bill. I'll explain that in just a minute. The bill was a vision for the future-a way in which we could grow trade in Southern and Northern California, protect our citizens, get trucks off the highways, and look to a future of renewed growth in international trade-doing it through rail and new technologies. It would also fix grade separation, investing in or supporting high-speed trains, whether mag-lev or whatever else the ports and the communities might support. The bill would have provided funding to reduce pollution from trains, trucks, and yard equipment in a time when we're suffering 3,700 premature deaths a year due to pulmonary diseases. The worst asthma rates in the nation are in Southern California.

This bill had bi-partisan support. The five counties of Southern California-L.A., San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura-all of their boards of supervisors, Republicans and Democrats, planning commissions, and transportation authorities, all supported the bill. All the big mayors supported the bill, whether it was Curt Pringle or Antonio Villaraigosa. At both ends of the political spectrum, mayors sent messages to the governor saying, "This is a regional approach that leads us to the future."

It was definitely needed. We can't just build our way out of growth through highways. We've got to fix the grade separation. Trains are now getting so long that people can't get across town. Mayor Loveridge talked about how in Riverside people wait 35 minutes, at times, at grade separations. That's unacceptable.

The governor didn't respond to any of that. He said, "Well why aren't you giving a percentage of the money to the Central Valley? I need money for the Central Valley." That's what Proposition 1B was for, to help the Central Valley. And the Central Valley is covered in this bill, if in fact those trucks and trains come into our port areas. But, as the Legislative Council said, it moves from a fee to a tax if you just give money out on a percentage basis. The governor wanted help in the Central Valley. I understand that. They have problems, but it's not due to the goods coming in and out of the ports. It has its own issues.

The governor also wanted me to move more money toward highways. This entire coalition wanted this to be "the rail bill" and "the air quality improvement bill," not to be a Christmas tree to fix every problem. The future in goods movement will not be primarily through highway construction. The future will be getting trucks off highways, figuring out that we have these systems, and that we have to move as much as possible by rail. What we have now is an antiquated and broken-down rail system. We have a world-class port system dumping goods into a third world transportation system. That's what this bill was going to fix.

It will be hard to capture the emotional and personal energy and effort you've put in this bill into print, but I can certainly hear it in your voice. Talk a little about what went into crafting this bill over the past two years and the coalition that came together and supported it.

Those of us in planning understand how difficult it is to bring together cities, counties, regions, and states to form a consensus. Cities don't like giving up authority, so the Port of L.A., the Port of Long Beach, the city of L.A., the city of Long Beach, and the counties around Los Angeles, which are all part of this system, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, did not like giving up any authority. We had to bring all of those people together to say we're going to set up a governing system that you're all a part of-everyone would have to give up a little but you're going to gain new projects. We're going to reduce pollution and we're going to move to rail-let's all work together. We have never had such a coalition before.

The same thing occurred in the northern part of the state through their distribution centers, bringing together their air resources board and their ports. People who had never worked together were working together. This was a great loss, but we have made tremendous gains. People now are more attentive to these issues. Local communities are beginning to work together to solve this. Both ports, had it not been for this bill, would have never moved this far ahead in changing their missions statements, their philosophies. This has been a great unifying force for our communities. Environmentalists understand the needs of goods movement and are working with cities and counties. Environmental justice communities are supporting this bill. We have had a tremendous coalition working together. I don't plan on losing that. I still plan on working on this issue because we don't have it solved.

There are now a lot of people across the political spectrum that understand that our future is tied to new technologies-clean, green technologies. If we can grow the trade here with new technologies, not only will we be able to move more goods, but we can also sell these technologies to the rest of the word. Everyone is suffering, and it is time that California plays a leadership role in the world. We now have this critical mass of people together that has taken years to develop, and we're all on the same page. I don't want to lose that.

In his veto message, the governor said, "Given the current economic downturn, it is vitally important that the state does not worsen the situation by mandating added costs on businesses that do not provide any public benefits. Since this bill was introduced, container fees have been raised by the ports at a rate of 67 percent higher than the fee contemplated in this bill to pay for many of the same programs." Could you comment on veto rationale offered by the governor?

It is quite disingenuous for the governor to that there is no public benefit. This bill is all about public benefit. It costs approximately $1,500 in fees to move goods in a container from Asia to the United States. There are customs fees, wharfage fees, all sorts of fees. The $30 on a 20-foot container, or $60 on a 40-foot container, is a fraction added to the costs of these goods-a half a penny on a pair of sneakers.

Everywhere else in the world, countries are investing in infrastructure. Even the fees in the ports are being used to develop world-class ports but they are dumping their goods into a third world infrastructure and transportation system. Once we leave the ports we have congestion, bottlenecks, and pollution of an unbelievable amount.

This bill is even more important now because without it, once trade comes back, we're not going to be able to handle it. This is the only fee that actually goes to fix the infrastructure between the ports and distribution centers. We all know that the congestion and the inability to move goods are going to cause people to divert from Southern California. That's really why they came there, because we had this infrastructure. That's why they will go elsewhere-not this few pennies that could be added to their cost.

We had a vehicle that said exactly where every penny was going to go. The real opposition to this bill was from folks saying, "If the state does it, the money is just going to go into a black hole. It's going to end up in the general fund; we're never going to see it. It's another example, like with customs and all the other fees, where money is collected to meet the needs of special interests." This was to meet the public's interest. It was a way to build the infrastructure with a vision so that when we move goods in the future, it would not be primarily on highways, but on dedicated freight lines with new, non-polluting technological systems.

How successful have the Clean Truck Programs at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles been since they were initiated at the beginning of October?

We're seeing that the predictions of gloom and doom have not occurred. It has been a successful transition. Granted, we're only doing the earliest trucks, the pre-1988 trucks. They're going to need support.

SB 974 had the support of the ports because it would allow us to provide the backdrop to fill in the gaps where there were gaps. If we're going to look at goods movement we have to look at it as a system. It's not just the ports; it's not just the clean truck program. The Clean Truck Program is such an amazing first step. They know they aren't going to be able to fund everything themselves. It also would have allowed us to focus on the electrification of rail, more dock-to-rail facilities, more cold ironing, to fix the equipment, do the locomotives, and all the their parts of the system. I applaud the ports. What they're doing now is demonstrating that a commitment and raising fees locally can fix some of these problems, as long as we tie the money to specific projects and people see that this is value added, that they're getting something for this. It doesn't answer everything. It's just the first step.

As a state senator, you represent the city of Long Beach and a significant part of the county of L.A. On November's ballot is Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase for funding priority transportation projects. Obviously it is difficult to reach unanimity, let alone overwhelming consensus in Los Angeles County given it's population of 10 million, but that is the challenge for proponents of Measure R, which must get a two-thirds vote. What's your take on Measure R, and what's you're response to those who don't believe they can support it?

I disagree with the Long Beach paper's editorial against it. I've worked very hard as the chair of Senate Transportation and Housing Committee to make sure that AB 2321, Assemblymember Feuer's bill, passed. The latter bill also needed to bring together a coalition and a consensus. When the bill came from the Assembly to the Senate, there were all these different sub-regions of L.A. County that were opposed to the bill. We worked very hard to have a consensus bill. The people of Los Angeles are confronted now with the issue that, without this funding for new and needed infrastructure and this focus on transit, we're not going to be able to accommodate growth, reduce pollution, and move people through the L.A. area without gridlock. It's just not going to happen.

It's a very difficult time. We have to be very careful what kinds of initiatives we support. But if we don't do it now, when will we? This is a major step forward, and I think the time is right to pass Measure R.

Lastly, given your well-received appearance in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, what's your view on how California's potentially game changing environmental law, AB 32, will be implemented?

If they made another movie today, and AB 32 is certainly leading the way along with other bill's like Pavley's AB 1493 on tailpipe emissions, the sequel to Who Killed the Electric Car? would be Who Resurrected the Electric Car? The electric car was an idea that was just ahead of its time, maybe many years ahead of its time. We are at a crossroads now. General Motors, for its first 100 years, built gasoline and internal combustion engines. For the next 100 years, General Motors is going to build electric cars. Maybe they will be powered by hydrogen, maybe powered by batteries, but they are all going to be electric cars. That's really where we are. California has led the way in promoting alternative fuels, non-pollution, and that's really what we're going to have. We need to get through this crisis. We need to set priorities. I'm just really glad to be a part of that movement.