RIVERSIDE - A newly released study puts a nearly $14 billion price tag on the cost of future freeway expansions in western Riverside County, but representatives of local governments balked Wednesday at the idea of building some of that cost into the price of new houses and apartments.

The $13.8 billion estimate does not include freeway expansion deemed necessary to relieve current congestion, but only the new lanes needed beyond that to keep traffic flowing as the region continues to add jobs, houses and increased freight traffic through the year 2030.

The study estimated that population growth would drive the need for 33.4 percent of the additional freeway capacity, potentially justifying fees totalling $4.6 billion on new residents and houses.

The study, by international consulting firm Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quaid & Douglass, stemmed from a series of four lawsuits Temecula officials filed against Riverside County from 2001 through 2003. The city alleged the county government had approved thousands of new houses in Menifee and French Valley without expanding road capacity there.

Settlements required the county to guarantee road improvements and to split the cost of the freeway study with the city and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, an agency created by the county and the two dozen cities within it. The county, city and commission are responsible for about $280,000 each in financing the study's $840,000 cost.

Local governments already charge a $9,700 fee on each new house to fund construction of surface roads. Marion Ashley, one of the five county supervisors on the commission, estimated a similar fee for freeways could pencil out to at least $5,000 a house if growth continues as expected. A building-industry representative predicted a new freeway fee would quickly grow to equal the existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee.

At a commission meeting Wednesday morning, members acknowledged the impact of population growth on traffic and none disputed the $4.6 billion figure. But with even modest local houses costing more than $300,000 and the building industry in a major slump, some members were skeptical about placing another fee on new houses. The commission voted unanimously to take no immediate action, but members agreed that several should get together to study possibilities for funding the roads.

"I'm adamantly opposed to charging the people of this county for a problem that's caused out of Los Angeles," said Riverside City Councilman Steve Adams, who represents his city on the commission. "We are servicing the rest of the nation. We are being punished for getting their goods through."

Adams was referring to the port complex of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together account for 36 percent of the cargo shipped through U.S. ports, including the growing volume of imports from China and other Asian countries. Some of that commerce contributes to the region's economy when it passes through distribution centers, while some simply passes through on the way to places like Arizona, Abilene and Arkansas. Adams and several other commission members called for shipping companies to help cover the cost of new freeway lanes.

Steve DeBaun, an attorney who advises the commission, wasn't immediately able to say what sort of fee system might be allowed under state or federal law.

Local sales taxes and other existing fees are expected to cover $4.7 billion of the estimated $13.8 billion cost of keeping up with growth. Even if fees on new houses bring in $4.6 billion, it isn't clear where the final $4.5 billion would come from.

Ashley called the study's results "very sobering."

"I think we all realized there was a gap out there, but nobody thought it was that much," Ashley said.

Other options include new taxes on gasoline or general sales; several commissioners agreed that either would be politically unpopular. Calimesa City Councilman John Chlebnik warned that any local fee might hurt cities and businesses near the borders of Riverside County if it pushes home buyers or drivers to spend their money on the other side of the county line.

Several commission members slammed the state government for creating new social programs and requiring counties to pay the costs. Others condemned state environmental regulations as bringing more costs and bureaucratic red tape than environmental protection.

Supervisor John Tavaglione said additional charges for gasoline or new houses might backfire. Riverside and other "self-help" counties risk becoming suckers, he suggested.

"The more good we do, the more they do - the state - to stick us with the bill," Tavaglione said. "I am completely against putting more fees on our homeowners."

Several commission members and building-industry representative Borre Winckel noted the building slump of the last 12 months, which nonetheless followed five years of record-setting growth.

At the very least, they said, the recent slowdown should give the commission time to consider a new fee carefully before imposing it. And besides, commission spokesman John Standiford said, the commission may not be able to pressure local governments to collect a new freeway fee as regional agencies were able to do in pushing the earlier mitigation fee for surface roads

Supervisor Jeff Stone, who helped initiate Temecula's lawsuits as a member of its City Council, said he agreed with most of the suggestions Wednesday. He sympathized with concerns that Southern California home prices may have already soared out of first-time home buyers' reach.

Still, he argued, the transportation agency shouldn't immediately dismiss the idea of a new-home fee to fund freeways.

"There is an impact of new development on the county's freeway system," Stone said.

- Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com.