News Home Page

Following a decision last week in Sacramento, San Diego County is in position to snare a significant chunk of the $500 million it was seeking from state bond proceeds for transportation projects that speed the delivery of goods.

The county wanted the money to cover a portion of the cost of new roads and railroads that would help bring products into the region from the border and Port of San Diego, and for improvements to port terminals.

"We were very successful in Sacramento, in securing up to $400 million in bond money for goods movement," said Gary Gallegos, executive director for the San Diego Association of Governments, the county's regional transportation agency.

During a California Transportation Commission meeting held to set guidelines for distributing $3 billion statewide for goods movement projects next spring, San Diego County went into the bond ring with California's urban heavyweights, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

And Los Angeles launched a powerful swing in a bid to land an early knockout blow.

Flanked by three dozen state lawmakers, powerful Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, flatly demanded that commissioners commit three-fourths of the money ---- about $2.2 billion ---- to the transportation corridor coming out of the giant twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Nunez reasoned that, because those ports handle 85 percent of the cargo shipped by California ports, the busy corridor through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties should get the lion's share of the money.

"They wanted almost all of the money," said downtown San Diego businessman John Chalker, San Diego County's representative on the nine-member commission. "They wanted to start at 85 percent and work down from there."

A Midwest subsidy

But the focus on the cargo traffic ignored the fact that nearly two-thirds of it is headed to other states, not to points within California, Chalker said.

"I viewed it (the requested money) as a subsidy to out-of-state companies, such as Wal-Mart, and out of-state consumers in places such as the Midwest ... with a very minimal economical benefit to the state of California with some very severe environmental consequences," he said.

And, Chalker said, Los Angeles' claim seemed to ignore the huge amount of international trade that is funneled through the border and state airports.

In large part because of those points, Chalker and seven other commissioners said no to Los Angeles' attempt to funnel an overwhelming share of the money through the nation's second-largest metropolis.

Had such a commitment been made, it could have prevented San Diego County from getting most, if not all, the money it sought. Because that commitment wasn't made, the San Diego region's port, border complex and coastal railroad could become winners.

The bond fight is the latest in a long string of turf battles that have occurred between San Diego and Los Angeles over the last century and a half.

"This ranks as the latest chapter in the infrastructure wars that started when L.A. got the (intercontinental) railroad and we didn't back in 1873," said Steve Erie, a UC San Diego political science professor. "And this continues the battle."

$250M-$400M for SD County

The battle for bond money is not over.

Regions still must submit their wish lists to the commission by Jan. 17 and the commission staff is due to release its list of suggested winning projects on March 13. The commissioners aren't scheduled to award the money until April 10.

However, Chalker said, commissioners set clear guidelines for dividing the cash among the regions of the state that play major roles in the delivery of goods coming into California from other countries by sea and by land.

Those guidelines call for delivering $250 million to $400 million to the San Diego/International Border corridor, $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion to the Los Angeles-Inland Empire region, $640 million to $840 million to the San Francisco Bay/Central Valley corridor and $60 million to $80 million to other corridors.

"Those ranges were reached after some very lengthy and serious discussions amongst all the regions of the state, including Los Angeles and the Inland Empire," Chalker said. "So we very much want to respect those numbers if at all possible."

The $3 billion up for grabs includes $2 billion from the $20 billion state transportation bond approved by voters in November 2006, $425 million in state gas tax revenues and $570 million in federal revenues and shipping fees.

"They've given each of the gateways a target programming range," Gallegos said. "We will be submitting projects based on our target."

That probably means that the regional transportation agency will not seek the $100 million it previously had said it wanted for laying down a second track along the coastal railroad through North County and San Diego, he said. That's because that particular project was ranked as the region's lowest priority earlier this fall.

"Right now, it is not within our target," Gallegos said. "So that probably falls out, unless we're willing to substitute one of those others for that rail project."

A loss for San Diego?

The higher-priority projects include a road leading into the county from a proposed border crossing at Otay Mesa, construction of Highway 905 along the border, marine terminal improvements at the Port of San Diego, and a new freight-only railroad linking the port and border.

Eligible projects must be in a position to be under construction by 2013, under the guidelines.

Not everyone agrees with the notion that last week's setting of ranges was a victory for San Diego County.

"It's not only a big loss for Los Angeles in terms of funding for goods movement, it's also a loss for San Diego," said Erie, the UC San Diego professor who has long studied the rivalry of the two major Southern California cities.

"The port at San Pedro Bay is our main port," Erie said. "Ninety percent of our vessel cargo, by value, goes out and comes in by way of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Anybody who thinks this is a great victory for San Diego is crazy. We've cut off our nose to spite our face, to consider this a victory."

One thing's for sure: The apparent victory is far from having been secured.

That's because Nunez, the Assembly speaker, is hardly in the mood to concede defeat.

"I will work vigorously with my colleagues from these counties (north of San Diego) to make sure the Los Angeles-Inland Empire trade corridor gets the honest treatment it deserves, and that the voters in our communities get the improvements they expected when they passed the bonds," Nunez said.

He vowed to pick up the fight in the Legislature, where the bond awards will have to survive the rigors of the annual budget battle.

Meanwhile, Chalker vowed in an interview last week to work just as hard to make sure that the money gets distributed more equitably.

"They're not the only game in the state," Chalker said.