|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - November/December 2007 / Points of View: Freight mobility needs to pull its fair share |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: Freight mobility needs to pull its fair share |
|
|
|
Written On: November/December 2007 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Sen. Mary, Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island |
|
|
|
Visit any port or rail yard in Washington and you'll be amazed at the hustle and bustle of activity that exemplifies how much our diverse economy relies on trade. Our ports are a transit point for billions of dollars of imports and exports every year, and provide jobs to tens of thousands of longshoremen, truckers, railway workers and the businesses that serve their industries.
But the beehive of activity at our ports isn't the only thing you'll notice. You'll also see a transportation bottleneck as cargo-laden trucks leave the ports and navigate the surface streets connecting to major highways, where they become bogged down and restrict the flow of traffic like a blood clot in an artery.
What looks like a problem is really a symptom. Our ability to provide transportation infrastructure has become outpaced by our economic success to the point that it is now hampering our ability to grow.
The remedy is obvious. Our transportation infrastructure needs "bypass surgery" to relieve the congestion at places where freight and commuters become entangled.
Everyone knows what needs to be done. We've identified at least eight specific rail and highway projects of statewide significance that will help ease congestion and increase commerce, and we know how much it's going to cost to get these jobs done.
Now we need to decide where the money will come from, and it's no surprise that everyone wants someone else to pay.
Trade-related freight movement uses a significant portion of our transportation infrastructure, but doesn't pay for much of that infrastructure outside of our ports' gates. Meanwhile, passenger vehicles and commercial fleets pay the lion's share of fuel tax and weight fee increases from the Nickel and Transportation Partnership Account packages.
Fairness dictates that those who are already paying the most shouldn't have to pay even more, especially for infrastructure that will significantly benefit other users. Since improvements to freight-related transportation infrastructure will directly benefit the freight industry, these improvements should be financed through fees they pay. It makes perfect sense that those who benefit most from the service should pay for it.
Some argue that imposing fees on freight will put Washington ports at a competitive disadvantage compared to other West Coast ports. This is short-sighted. Without significant investment in freight mobility, chokepoints and bottlenecks will eventually impose a competitive disadvantage of their own. But by improving our freight infrastructure, we can make our ports more competitive by increasing efficiency. Separating rail from road will ease congestion for everyone, and cargo trucks will have access to additional capacity that allows them to spend less time—and burn less fuel—sitting in traffic. With California already considering a similar solution, we need to innovate now to stay ahead of the curve.
Implementing a user fee to fund projects that will benefit a specific industry isn't a new concept. Alaska has successfully used this approach to finance infrastructure for the petroleum and cruise ship industries, and neither has experienced the loss of trade, commerce or tourism that the naysayers predicted.
Freight movement through our ports is expected to grow by 30 percent in the next 10 years, so it's obvious we need to do something to ensure we're ready to take advantage of this opportunity. Even opponents of the proposal to charge a container-based user fee acknowledge that freight mobility projects are extremely important to the industry and the economy.
David Schaefer, spokesman for the Port of Seattle and an opponent of a freight mobility user fee, admitted as much to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Freight projects are a big deal for us," Schaefer said. "We've built the maritime infrastructure here for our port, and we have the capacity in our harbor to do double what we do now in terms of containers. We need to be sure we can get them in and out of Seattle."
I couldn't agree more. We need to invest in freight mobility if we want to leverage our ports' capacity to grow our economy, but it isn't going to happen without financial support from the industries that have much to gain from these improvements. Those who oppose a user fee have yet to suggest an alternative, but I'm hoping that through stakeholder participation we can work together to find a workable solution.
I'm committed to ensuring that transportation in Washington is as safe, efficient and economical as we can make it. I believe that improvements to freight mobility will make a significant contribution to this goal once we can agree on an appropriate funding mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
