Copyright 2002 The Chronicle Publishing Co.  

The San Francisco Chronicle
DECEMBER 27, 2002, FRIDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1

LENGTH: 996 words

HEADLINE: 2003's big fight: highway dollars;

California looks for larger share of billions allocated by Congress

SOURCE: Chronicle Washington Bureau

BYLINE: Edward Epstein

DATELINE: Washington

BODY:
Of all the big issues Congress will take up in 2003, the one looming largest for California is the highway and transit funding program that generates billons of dollars for projects that keep the state's jammed traffic from grinding to a halt.

As the jockeying begins anew over a program that provided states with $217 billion the past six years for transportation projects, motorists should hold on to their wallets. Even though President Bush is an avowed tax-cutter, some key Republicans in Congress have joined highway and transit advocates to urge an increase in the 18.3-cents-a-gallon federal tax to pay for a more ambitious construction and repair program.

The fuel tax and federal taxes collected on the sales of tires and trucks and trailers finance the federal share of the huge transportation program.

No state has more at stake than California, which received $3.7 billion in 2001 fiscal year under the expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. About $2.3 billion of that went for highway planning and construction, while the rest helped finance transit projects such as the soon-to-open BART extension to San Francisco International Airport.

California, where planners expect to see a 44 percent population increase by 2020, will have to fight to hold its own under the legislation's complicated formulas for awarding money. Every state is looking for a bigger cut, and lobbyists have descended on the Capitol to make their case for renewing a program that expires Sept. 30.

The transportation funding bill is one of the most popular programs in Washington because politicians and their constituents love public works projects, and Americans just about everywhere feel the pressure of increased traffic and crumbling roads and bridges. Politicians love to say that for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure projects, 42,000 jobs are created.

The comprehensive transportation program, first passed as one huge bill in 1991, must be reauthorized every six years by Congress.

KEEPING UP WITH POPULATION

California, which probably will have to put some transportation projects on hold to deal with a looming $35 billion state deficit, has an even bigger stake in wringing every penny it can from the federal program.

"We're infrastructure poor," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., adding that fighting for the state's fair share would be one of her top 2003 legislative priorities. "We continue to attract more people, and the only solution is better transportation."

The House Transportation Committee, where the bill to renew the programs will start, is one of the few in Congress that tries to operate on a bipartisan basis. It remains to be seen how California, a Democratic-dominated state, will fare in a GOP-controlled Congress.

But many in California think the state hasn't received its fair share of transportation funding under the legislation.

A recent study from the Public Policy Institute of California found that from 1991 to 2001, the state's per capita highway funding under the transportation program rose 66.6 percent, from $39 to $65. Not bad, except the national per capita figure rose 73.2 percent, from $56 to $97.

California, which has about 13 percent of the nation's population, gets 9.1 percent of its highway funds, under a formula that counts a state's miles of highway, road usage and diesel fuel usage.

In contrast, California gets about 20 percent of the program's transit funding, because the formula stresses the percentage of a state that is urbanized, and California is just about the most urbanized place in the union, trailing only New Jersey and the District of Columbia, the study found.

Considerations such as these have led the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission to say that California will have to fight to preserve what funding it has, rather than look for an increase.

"A well-crafted defensive strategy will be an essential part of our effort in the upcoming reauthorization debate to protect gains made over the last two reauthorizations," said a draft strategy document by the commission.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission backs raising the federal fuel tax, not just on gasoline but also on gasohol, the fuel produced from grain that now gets a tax break of 5.3 cents a gallon. It also wants federal permission to allow tolls from Bay Area toll bridges to be used for mass transit operations, something the autonomous Golden Gate Bridge District now does for its buses and ferries.

Highway and public transit officials say they need more money to keep the current infrastructure from crumbling, replace and expand it and meet security needs that have been come to the fore since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

'WE NEED MORE MONEY'

The idea of a potential fuel tax increase or of indexing the levy for inflation has been endorsed by such powerful Republicans as Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who chairs the House Transportation Committee. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has also said that given the pressing demands on the nation's infrastructure, a tax increase may be unavoidable.

"We need more money. Either we borrow it, or we raise it," he said at a hearing in the fall. "If you're responsible, and you believe in this user fee formula, it means this tax is going to have to be raised."

Rep. Robert Borski, D-Pa., the House Transportation Committee's third-ranking Democrat, said he would like to see a consensus form on the panel for a half-cent to a 2-cent tax increase. "Given the unmet needs, we can't pass bills without new funding," he said.

Under current formulas, a 2-cent rise would yield about $3 billion more annually for highways and about $650 million more for transit.

Bush, whose aversion to raising taxes forms the core of his economic policy, has yet to take a position on increased gas taxes.

E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.

GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has said a tax increase may not be avoidable.

LOAD-DATE: December 27, 2002