COG’s Directors’ conduct at the
”
unmet needs
”
hearing illustrates, once again, why we have dysfunctional
transport policy.
COG’s Directors’ conduct at the “unmet needs” hearing illustrates, once again, why we have dysfunctional transport policy.
Like fighting a fire with gasoline, COG’s Directors are fostering a counterproductive policy, creating more “unmet needs,” ignoring history, economics and logic. As a former member of COG’s Transit Task Force, and as a post-doctoral student of transportation law and policy, I once again said that reliance on public-sector transport to solve SBC’s transport needs is misplaced. I reminded them of their unanimous decision last May to privatize County Transit. I recommended, once again, that we follow Mexico, and other countries (Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, not to mention the Eastern Bloc Countries) and privatize our transport in what the Wall Street Journal described as the “privatization revolution.” I once again reminded them that it costs SBC’s taxpayers about $9 million to give 2/1000’s ths (.002) of SBC’s annual rides on County Transit. If you increased that number by factors of ten, then SBC’s taxpayers would need to send $90 million to Sacramento just to give .02 (two hundredths), $900 million to give .2 (two percent), of SBC’s annual passenger trips. The transport policy COG is following is great for urban counties (LA, SF, SJ, etc.), whose transit riders enjoy enormous subsidies paid by rural counties‚ taxpayers. For example, whereas SBC gets back only 11 cents/dollar in taxes sent to Sacramento, the average transit rider in SF receives $422,356.10 annually for rides on the MTA system. It would be logical for SF’s MTA’s Directors to support that policy, but I cannot understand why rural counties‚ MPO’s (metropolitan planning organizations) like COG supports it. And moreover, it is rank hypocrisy to vote to privatize transit and turn around and increase public-sector transport. With the federal debt rapidly approaching $7 trillion, the federal budget and trade deficits at historic highs, the state bankrupt, employers fleeing California (or going bankrupt), jobs leaving and disappearing overseas by the millions, why does COG want to rely on deficit-causing public-sector transit?
In October 2002 UP’s Industrial Development Department offered to assist us with rail-oriented economic development on the Hollister Branch Line, used more than $2 million of its own money to refurbish the Line to keep rail service open, and yet COG has done nothing to grab the opportunity to create rail-oriented jobs. Sadly COG’s Directors have not asked us on the Rail Advisory Committee to investigate the possibilities, even though I made a presentation to them, to the Technical Advisory Committee, and to Al Martinez and his Board of Directors of the SBC Economic Development Corporation, together with Paul MacDonald from UP’s Industrial Development Department.
I say once again to COG’s Directors: Emperor Transit First is stark naked! This county needs jobs, not higher deficit spending. Counties and cities that have adopted various forms of privatization for passenger bus transport have enjoyed substantial cost reductions with simultaneous service improvements.
The Emperor’s nakedness is not undone by throwing out the guy who’s telling His Highness the truth about the regal robes.
Elderly and disadvantaged people have better transport service when government gets out of the transportation business. There are no welfare-to-work trains or buses running in the USSR today.
From vanpools to bullet trains, public-sector transport is inferior to capitalism. If our Legislature didn’t authorize Enron-style accounting practices at the transit agencies and authorities (like Caltrain), transit agency directors‚ financial reports would not be deceiving the public the way that COG’s reports do. (They don’t include fully amortized costs!)
I think that SBC’s local leaders ought to focus their attention on the missing link in the region’s transportation infrastructure. Instead of more wasteful, empty transit buses, more son-of-Amtrak passenger rail operations, our elected representatives should join forces to regain intermodal facilities for the Central California Coast. Of all our “unmet needs,” this should be our No. 1 priority.
According to Traffic World and other industry publications, Congress will propose enactment of $387 billion TEA-21 reauthorization legislation by the end of this month. President Bush has promised to veto such socialistic wastefulness. Our local leaders have not been consistent in following their earlier privatization decision. Rather, they are preparing to increase County Transit’s taxpayer dependent “unmet needs” deficit spending. Do they think that taxpayers can afford such wastefulness? Do they think that Prop. 56 will pass, enabling higher taxes and fees to be imposed? Don’t they realize that if it does pass, fleeing employers and jobs will result in lower overall tax revenues for California government? What will COG’s Directors do with greater “unmet needs” for public-transit rides and less tax revenues; higher demands by public-sector union employees, and fewer private sector employers and jobs? As Lincoln said, we are a House Divided against ourselves. SBC needs more wasteful public transit like it needs a hole in the head. Without a policy change, our leaders‚ myopia will only worsen the region’s dysfunctional transportation. More transit riders, who pay fares that cover only 1 percent of fully amortized costs, will only worsen local government budget deficits. Most of all, we need structural reform of our policies, not additional transport waste.
Agriculture alone is hardly more than subsistence farming. Combined with efficient, economical transport, ag can be a profitable business. But California spends more money on bike paths than it does on intermodal transport facilities. I have repeatedly urged SBC’s leaders to correct this mistake, but we continue to blunder, repeating the mistakes of the past without learning from them. Why?
What is SBC’s real “unmet need” for transport? Consider:
– You must travel from the Port of Long Beach to the Port of Oakland before you find intermodal facilities.
– Silicon Valley is the largest urban area in North America without one.
– Intermodal facilities in Silicon Valley and Salinas Valley were abandoned by SP.
– Salinas Valley shippers have no viable alternative to trucks, so when truck “shortages” (real or imagined by truck brokers) occur, our produce cannot compete in transcontinental markets, or is gouged by the brokers’ “deregulated” freight rates.
– Intermodal rates average 40 percent less than truckload rates.
– Transcontinental intermodal service is truck-competitive (i.e., UPS is UP’s biggest intermodal customer tells you something about the service).
– Tonnage being drayed to and from the intermodal facilities at Lathrop (UP) and Stockton (ATSF-BN) from and to Silicon Valley and Salinas Valley over Altamont and Pacheco Passes makes a significant contribution to highway congestion and air pollution. The occurrence of big rig accidents is increasing.
– Axle weight is the single largest factor in road surface destruction and bridge support deterioration.
– TEA-21 reauthorization legislation is likely to include increasing gross vehicle weight (GVW) to “harmonize” with our NAFTA partners‚ GVW (Mexico=108,000 pounds.; Canada = 101,000)
– TEA-21 reauthorization is likely to lift the freeze on LCVs (Long Combination Vehicles: triple short (27 foot) trailers and “freeway doubles” (twin 53 foot trailers)) which are presently legal in 17 states, at least on the NHS (National Highway System routes).
– Restoration of intermodal facilities would alleviate some of the highway and bridge maintenance expenses that these federally-mandated (and pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause) TEA-21reauthorization developments will bring with them.
– At the high water mark following WWII, the nation had more than 2,500 intermodal facilities, but now we have fewer than 250 in the U.S.
– Mexican long-haul truck competition will undercut California truckers‚ rates, thus diverting the freight revenue and local and state taxes to Mexican domiciled carriers.
– Local drayage of tonnage to and from the ramps would be captured by local truckers, not Canadian or Mexican long-haul truckers admitted to California by NAFTA preemption.
– It takes four times the amount of fuel to move a ton of freight with rubber tires over concrete or asphalt as it does moving it with steel wheels on steel rails, so air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is directly affected by our lack of intermodal facilities on the Coast.
– It takes 9,000 subcompact cars to produce as much road surface damage (at today’s GVW, 80,000 pounds) as that produced by one fully-loaded big rig. Increasing GVW to Canadian limits will be the equivalent of striking California concrete with sledge hammers 20 percent heavier. Increasing to Mexican GVW will be like 25 percent heavier sledge hammers. Foreign carriers don’t pay for highway repairs.
– Accidents, injuries and deaths involving big rigs are increasing, while motor vehicle accident injury and death rates have been decreasing (measured by million miles of travel). Mexican drivers get commercial drivers licenses without comparable training as American CDL holders; Mexico has no hours of service rules for commercial drivers. Drivers paid on a “per trip” basis will be even more dangerous on our highways than our own desperadoes.
– When Altamont Pass is backed-up with traffic congestion, the UP’s parallel tracks are 100 percent empty (17 hours between trains).
– Our MPO’s (e.g., MTC, VTA, SCCRTC, etc.) blame “senior citizens driving their gas guzzlers” for everything from ozone holes, dirty air and traffic, but when I asked the Senior Transportation Planners at VTA and AMBAG why they don’t include intermodal facilities in their long-range congestion management plans, they both said, “What is an intermodal facility?”
– Our Nation has abandoned more track than most countries around the world ever laid.
– AMBAG’s Freight Study (1995) concluded that the Salinas Valley needed intermodal facilities then, but instead, they focused on public-sector passenger transit.
– Years ago ag shippers in the Salinas Valley enjoyed expedited rail service, including TOFC service, on the “Salad Bowl Express,” which we operated via SP-Ogden-UP-Council Bluffs-CNW-Chicago-PC. No such service exists for shippers here today.
– As a former truck dispatcher, I can tell you that truck drivers would rather be home at night with their wives and children than traveling across the country trying to beat impossible demands made on them by the shippers (and cheating the hours of service rules much of the time).
– As a former customer service clerk (10 years for UP), I can tell you that the shippers want reliable delivery schedules more than speedy trucks (air freight handles critical freight).
– Caltrans Chief of Highway Programs, Mr. Jim Nicholas, promulgated Caltrans‚ transport strategies (“themes”) and announced them to the California Transportation Commission on June 6, 2001, including (theme six) increased Statewide reliance on intermodal transportation.
– Before 9/11/01, Transportation Secretary Mineta, and T&I vice-chair, ranking Democrat James Oberstar (D-Minn.) both recommended that the Nation have increased reliance on intermodal transportation (since 9-11 their focus has been on security).
– Caltrans Chief of Freight Planning, Mr. Tom Messer, met with Gilroy’s Economic Development Corporation Executive Director Mr. Bill Lindsteadt, and Congressman Mike Honda’s transportation staff man and others in Gilroy at my suggestion, and we all urged him to tell the Congressman that we desperately need restoration of intermodal facilities for this Region.
– On Tuesday Jan. 21, 2003 Mr. Al Martinez, Executive Director, EDC of San Benito County had me make a joint presentation to EDC’s Board of Directors with Mr. Paul MacDonald, Regional Manager, Industrial Development Dept., UP regarding increased rail economic development.
– On Oct. 21, 2002 at Pleasanton UP’s Industrial Development Department presented an economic development forum to local government and private-sector businessmen regarding increasing Northern California rail commerce and promoting rail service to more communities.
– UP’s CEO Dick Davidson has been quoted widely in the trade press saying that UP wants a bigger share of the “I-5 Freight Corridor Pie.” This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the resolution adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments to build “truck only” freeway lanes!
– After deregulating the utilities, California’s Legislature was more than a little embarrassed by the failure to build more power generation capability. We are now paying dearly for their lack of foresight! How will it look when Congress raises GVW to harmonize with NAFTA partners, lifts the freeze on LCVs, and we see Mexican trucks statewide moving California tonnage on our highways? A little foresight by our Legislature would be a refreshing change.
– Eastern Washington State shippers and receivers are seeing restoration of intermodal facilities, with the assistance of WASHDOT and Strategic Rail Finance Corporation. Washington State ag enjoys a competitive advantage that Central California Coast ag lacks, and our commerce, and our communities, suffer the adverse consequences.
– Stark County, Ohio’s new NEO-MODAL facility’s White Paper is available for our blue print to follow. I’ve recommended it to local government and EDC’s.
– FRA’s person in charge told me after the Transportation Law Institute in Arlington last November that most of the $3.5 billion Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Finance (RRIF) program loan money (created by TEA-21) was sitting intact and unused at FRA waiting for applicants. RRIF projects include intermodal facilities.
– RRIF projects with State government support are given priority under the RRIF regulations published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2000, which include a $1.0 billion “set aside” for shortline railroad projects.
– Some benefits that you would see if we restore intermodal facilities in the region:
1. Facilitate commerce and trade
2. Improve transportation (Passenger and Freight)
3. Stimulate local economy
4. Create local jobs
5. Increase local capital spending and investment
6. Reduce highway maintenance expenses
7. Reduce air pollution and improve air quality
8. Reduce highway congestion (divert trailers and containers to rail routes)
9. Improve highway safety and reduce accidents
10. Increase local government tax base
11. Create transport options for growers, packers and shippers and receivers
12. Improve product profitability during truck shortages
13. Reduce border crossing delays for NAFTA products trade
14. Retain affordable housing by reducing traffic impact fees
15. Maintain character and environment of county
16. Preserve agricultural land and small farms
17. Reduce fuel consumption
18. Reduce driver fatigue-related accidents
19. More Responsive Management to Competitive Marketplace
20. Less government, less taxes, and therefore, greater competitive success rate and fewer business failures and bankruptcies
Therefore, I am recommending that voters tell our leaders that motorists are no longer willing to pay 100 percent of their own transportation costs, plus 99 percent of the transportation costs of the transit systems’ riders’ costs. Instead, we must change our transportation policy, and we can start by demanding our California Congressional delegation to include restoration of intermodal facilities in California as part of TEA-21 reauthorization legislation. I believe that this should be our highest transportation priority, and would produce the most benefits for the region’s residents. More socialist transit will produce less transportation for those who need it the most. Transport policy, like housing or health care, is best for society when the private-sector supplies these needs. For local government leaders to give socialistsolutions to these problems only worsens them.
Caveat viator!
Joseph P. Thompson,
Tres Pinos
