HispanicVista Columnists

Billions of dollars are lost due to border crossing delays along the US-Mexico border

By Patrick Osio, Jr./HispanicVista.com

June 27, 2005

 

    

All along the US-Mexico border businesses and residents on both sides are the ones who feel the negative economic impacts due to northbound border crossing delays. However, discussions on economic disruptions due to delays have been difficult to understand due to a lack of actual figures supporting the amount of losses that are usually thrown around.

The most active vehicular and pedestrian border crossing ports-of-entry are the San Diego County in the US and municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate in Baja California. In order to better understand the extent of the economic impacts, SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) commissioned a study on cross border personal trips for work, vacation, shopping or recreation purposes. The core of the study was accomplished by interviewing over a four month period, 3,603 north bound border crossers (US and Mexico residents) at San Ysidro/Puerta Mexico, Otay Mesa/Mesa de Otay and Tecate ports-of-entry.

Using acceptable and reliable methodology SANDAG succeeded in providing San Diego, and indeed California, with the most comprehensive analysis on losses from visitors who forgo their trips, and gains made locally from those who would otherwise have spent across either border. (Though the findings are for the California region, it provides a glimpse of the obvious similar effects such delays have in the Arizona, New Mexico and in particular the Texas economies.)

In addition, the San Diego study produced a highly educated estimation of direct (direct spending), indirect (businesses that are direct suppliers) and induced (changes in businesses output, employment, income, and tax revenues) impacts.

The daily average delay based on the SANDAG survey is 45 minutes. (While the 45 minutes may be the average, it is not unusual for delays to exceed an hour, or at peak times, over two-hours including in the SENTRI lanes.)

Here is a partial summary of the SANDAG study:

Direct impacts:

“San Diego County loses over 8 million trips a year that may result into $1.28 billion in additional revenues, after adjusting for the revenue gains due (to) the local forgone trips to Mexico. The retail sector is affected the most as it represents over 90% of the impacted sectors. In addition, over 3 million potential working hours in San Diego County are spent in delays at the border, averaging about 45 minutes per work trip, which may result in $42 million in wages lost. The overall impact at the State level, given that 5% of the trips are headed outside the San Diego region, is over $1.32 billion in addition to the $44.3 million in income loss for work trips.”

Indirect and Induced impacts.

“When accounting for the Indirect and Induced Impact of the estimated revenue losses, the impact is more significant as it exceeds $2.2 billion in production losses (which is about 1.2% of the County total product) together with over 31,000 jobs lost (which is about 1.7% of the San Diego County labor force), mainly in the retail sector (which represents about 13% of the labor force in the County retail sector jobs.). Similarly, at the state-level the loss exceeds $2.4 billion in output (which is about 0.1% of the state overall product) and over 31,000 jobs lost (which is 0.2% of the State labor force)…. When accounting for uncertainty surrounding the estimating assumptions, the risk analysis reveals that with an 80% confidence interval, the loss in outputs for San Diego County is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, and the job loss is between 28,000 and 35,000 jobs.”

So the SANDAG study clearly provides evidence that border crossing delays cause billions of dollars in losses and thousands of jobs throughout the San Diego region as well as in other parts of the State.

But, in this columnist’s opinion, SANDAG went one step further than it should have – it attempted with the same survey to identify a potential partial solution to border delays with this question:

“A new point of entry may be built in East Otay Mesa that would provide a faster way to cross the border for people who are willing to pay a fee. If it costs three dollars to use this point of entry each time you crossed the border into the United States, would you use it?”

 

          The results:       59.4% would

                                  14.2% sometimes

                                  26.5% would not.

 

Was “faster” defined? Is it seconds, or 2 to 3 or 5 to 10 minutes? To use this port, one would travel through the congested Tijuana traffic for 30 to 40 minutes to reach the “fast” lanes. Were the program to succeed, how long would it be before those lanes would be as congested as other lanes? Since a great deal of the delays are caused by inspectors questioning and/or either semi or fully searching some cars, this won't be done?

SENTRI lanes in San Ysidro and Otay Mesa are supposed to be “fast” crossing lanes. To date over 50,000 people have gone through the application, interview and background check ordeal and paid over $100 for access to those “fast” lanes that at times are as congested as other lanes. So why not open more such lanes in all ports?

A few years ago, a test was made at the San Ysidro port keeping all lanes open 24 hours – amazingly the crossing time was under 10 minutes for that one day. Why not work on keeping all lanes open all day?

The more serious problem by SANDAG’s introduction of the idea is that politicos and bureaucrats, not only in California but the other border states as well, will latch on to the question and the 59.4-would-pay-respondent-percentage to introduce the idea that crossers don’t mind paying to cross with a “promise” that the money will be used to “speed” crossings on all ports-of-entry. So start charging now, and maybe some time in the future things will improve.

So on top of the delays, border crossers would have to pay an admission fee – that would make the SENTRI flat fee a bargain, which in turn will get another 50,000 applicants, which will mandate opening more SENTRI lanes, which would be OK since there would be less crossings, but with fewer non SENTRI lanes congestions would still be constant, which would further discourage crossings, which would add to the negative economic impact.

How soon do you think Senator Feinstein will revive her old idea of charging a toll at the border? I bet soon after she's told about the SANDAG question and percentages - never mind the other findings, she won't even look at those.

 

______________________________________________________________

Patrick Osio, Jr is Editor of HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) Contact at Posiojr@hispanic.sdcoxmail.com

Patrick Osio, Jr. has written a short but intensive manual on the Mexican perspective on numerous issues between our two countries. The manual is an in depth primer on the culture and protocol for better understanding Mexicans that in turn allows establishing personal and business relationships, and how to avoid the most common faux pas that can ruin relationships and business deals.

The manual is available through Electronic delivery for $9.95 making it possible to download the manual to save on your hard drive, printing its entirety or particular sections while reaping considerable savings over printed copies.