BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 744
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: torrico
VERSION: 6/23/09
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
SUBJECT:
Bay Area Express Lane Network
DESCRIPTION:
This bill authorizes the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to
acquire, administer, and operate a network of high-occupancy
toll (HOT) lanes in the Bay Area, provides authority to finance
the development of the network using toll revenues, and
establishes a process for regional cooperation.
ANALYSIS:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area
Toll Authority (BATA)
Existing law establishes the MTC as a local area planning agency
to provide comprehensive regional transportation planning for
the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Solano, and Sonoma.
Existing law establishes BATA as a public instrumentality
governed by the same board as that governing MTC, although BATA
is a separate legal entity from MTC. BATA is responsible for
the programming, administration, and allocation of all toll
revenues, except revenues from the seismic retrofit surcharge,
from the seven state-owned toll bridges within the geographic
jurisdiction of MTC.
HOT Lanes
AB 713 (Goldsmith), Chapter 962, Statutes of 1993, was passed to
establish what would become California's first HOT lane project.
The bill authorized the San Diego Association of Governments
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 2
(SANDAG) to allow single-occupant vehicles into the
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on Interstate 15 in San Diego
County for a fee. The project was part of a federal
demonstration program to assess the application of congestion
pricing and to increase revenues for transit development in the
I-15 corridor.
In 2004, AB 2032 (Dutra), Chapter 418, authorized the Sunol
Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority, the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, and SANDAG to develop and operate HOT
lane facilities using value or congestion pricing on a specified
number of transportation corridors within their jurisdictions,
subject to certain conditions.
AB 574 (Torrico), Chapter 498, Statutes of 2007, permitted those
agencies authorized to develop and operate HOT lanes under AB
2032 to issue bonds backed by projected toll revenues to pay for
the costs of developing the facilities.
AB 1467 (N??ez), Chapter 32, Statutes of 2006, authorizes, until
January 1, 2012, authorized four more HOT lane projects, two in
Northern California and two in Southern California.
Facilities authorized under AB 2032, as amended by AB 574
(Torrico), and under AB 1467 are subject to specified
conditions, including:
HOV lanes may only be operated as HOT lanes during
the hours that the lanes are otherwise restricted to use
by high-occupancy vehicles.
The lanes must be maintained at Level of Service C
(generally characterized as good operation with slight
delays), Caltrans expressly permits Level of Service D
(fair operation with noticeable delays).
Toll revenues are to be made available to the agency
for the direct expenses related to the operation
(including collection and enforcement), maintenance, and
administration of the toll program. All excess revenues
are required to be used in the corridor from which the
revenues were generated, exclusively for the
preconstruction, construction, and other related costs of
HOV facilities and transit service.
In total, 13 HOT lane projects are currently authorized
statewide for projects that are or will be located in the
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 3
following counties: Alameda, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside,
San Diego, Santa Clara.
Of those authorized, two are currently in operation: The SR 91
Express Lanes in Orange County and an 8-mile segment of
Interstate15 in San Diego County. Five facilities authorized
under existing law are in development, including a 14-mile
segment of I-680 in Alameda County. The southbound lane on
I-680 will involve a conversion of an existing lane while the
northbound lane will be new construction. Also, the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority has three projects in
development in Santa Clara County: Segments of SR 85, U.S. 101,
and the SR 237/I-880 interchange, all of which involve the
conversion of existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes.
This bill authorizes BATA to acquire, administer, and operate a
network of HOT lanes in the Bay Area, referred to as the Bay
Area Express Lane Network (network), provides authority to
finance the development of the network using HOT lane and bridge
toll revenues, and establishes a process for regional planning
and development. The major provisions are described below.
General Powers and Duties
This bill permits BATA to charge tolls for use of the network
and provides that BATA shall establish and revise the toll rate
schedule. The initial toll schedule and any subsequent changes
shall be made available to the public for review and comment for
30 days prior to adoption by the authority.
The toll schedule may include free or reduced rate passage for
HOVs, public transportation vehicles, low-emission or
energy-efficient vehicles, or motorcycles in a manner compliant
with federal law.
BATA is required to implement the express lane development plan
(see below) in a collaborative manner with Caltrans, CHP, and
Bay Area congestion management agencies, except any element that
the authority determines are impracticable or infeasible, or
that may delay commencement of operation of the network or
materially and adversely affect the financial condition of the
network, BATA, or its credit rating. BATA shall enter into
cooperative agreements with Caltrans and CHP that address all
matters related to design, construction, maintenance, and
operation of the network.
BATA shall enter into agreements with the Sunol Smart Carpool
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 4
Lane Point Powers Authority, the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority by January 1, 2011 providing for the transfer of HOT
lane facilities developed by those agencies to BATA.
This bill also prohibits the state from authorizing either
publicly- or privately-owned HOT lanes within the jurisdiction
of MTC, other than those authorized by this bill.
Financing
The bill establishes several provisions regarding financing the
development and operation of the network. Specifically, this
bill:
Allows BATA to issue tax-exempt bonds secured by a pledge of
all or any part of network revenue.
Provides that expenditures for the network may be funded from
network revenues, revenue bonds issued by BATA, grants and
loans from federal, state, and local agencies, including
congestion management agencies and BATA.
Allows toll bridge revenues to be expended on the network
provided that (a) funding from other sources is not available,
and, (b) the authority projects that funding the network will
not necessitate an increase in bridge toll rates or preclude
BATA from upholding its contractual and statutory obligations.
Allows BATA to pledge bridge toll revenues to secure bonds it
issues (a) if and to the extent that the authority determines
that funding for the network is not available on terms
acceptable to the authority without such a pledge, and, (b) if
BATA projects that those obligations will not necessitate an
increase in bridge toll rates or preclude the authority from
upholding its contractual and statutory obligations.
Allows the authority to increase bridge toll rates if it
becomes necessary to meet its obligations to bondholders for
bonds issued to fund the network.
Use of Network Revenues .
All revenue generated from the network shall be deposited in the
Bay Area Express Lane Account, which BATA shall create. Funds
may be expended for the following purposes:
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 5
To pay debt service on revenue bonds issued to finance the
network.
To repay any loans.
To pay or provide for expenses related to the administration,
acquisition, operation, maintenance, construction, and related
project development activities related to the network.
Any revenues remaining after payment of these obligations is
considered "net corridor revenue," 5 percent of which is held in
reserves and 95 percent of which is allocated to the corridors
in proportion to the net revenue they generated to implement
programs and projects in the corridor investment plan.
Regional Planning Process
The bill proposes organizational structures and establishes
processes to facilitate regional cooperation in the planning,
development, and operation of the network.
The Project Oversight Committee and Network Development Plan.
BATA shall establish the Project Oversight Committee
(committee), which shall consist of a representative from each
of the following organizations: BATA, who will serve as the
chair of the committee, Caltrans, CHP, and any congestion
management agency or countywide transportation planning agency
within MTC's jurisdiction that chooses to participate.
The committee is required to recommend to the authority an
express lane development plan for the network. In developing
the initial plan, the authority shall provide an estimate of the
funds available. The first plan shall consist of two elements:
(a) a phasing plan, including a definition of the geographic
boundaries of each of the express lane corridors, and, (b) an
operational plan that recommends consistent standards for the
network regarding design, signage, technology, marketing,
pricing policies and goals, occupancy standards for
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), hours of operation, maintenance,
enforcement, and tort liability.
In developing the phasing plan, the committee shall first
prioritize those corridors that can be converted to express
lanes from HOV lanes or that demonstrate the ability to generate
sufficient fee revenue to cover their financing, operating, and
maintenance costs.
BATA shall review and accept or reject the development plan
submitted to it by the committee. If BATA rejects the plan, it
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 6
shall return the plan to the committee with its comments and the
committee shall revise and resubmit the plan.
The express lane development plan shall be updated as needed,
but at least once every four years.
Corridor working groups and corridor investment plans. The
committee shall establish corridor working groups as
subcommittees of the committee. The number of working groups
shall correspond to the number of express lane corridors as
specified in the development plan. Each working group shall
consist of a representative from each of the following entities:
BATA, Caltrans, CHP, congestion management agencies whose
jurisdiction includes a portion or all of the working group's
corridor or whose residents comprise a significant share of the
potential travelers in the corridor.
Working groups shall establish its voting arrangements to
reflect the commuting patterns in the corridor and the level of
investment in corridor infrastructure, and shall select its
chair from among the staff representatives of the congestion
management agencies participating in the group.
Each working group shall prepare a project initiation document
and a corridor investment plan. The corridor investment plan
shall be submitted to the committee for approval, and shall
include proposals and recommendations regarding specified items.
The committee shall review and approve each corridor investment
plan. Once approved, the committee submits the plan to each
congestion management agency represented in the corridor working
group for a 60-day review. If all congestion management
agencies approve the investment plan, the committee submits the
plan to BATA. If an agency does not approve the plan, the bill
establishes a process whereby the committee and working group
work with the agency to revise the plan. The agency is given 60
days to review and approve the revised plan. If after 60 days
the agency still does not approve the plan, the committee shall
recommend the revised plan to BATA. The corridor investment
plan may not be implemented until BATA provides final approval.
The committee and working groups are subject to open meeting
requirements established by the Ralph M. Brown Act.
COMMENTS:
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 7
1.Purpose . The author states that express lanes, also known as
HOT lanes, are a form of congestion management that allow
carpoolers to travel free of charge in a carpool lane but
allows the lane's excess capacity to be used by
single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) for a fee. These lanes
provide an opportunity to take advantage of existing, unused
capacity without forfeiting the benefits of carpooling and
express bus service. In addition, the revenue generated would
help finance expansion of the carpool lane network and provide
funding for public transit improvements within the corridor.
Currently, only Alameda and Santa Clara Counties are
authorized to construct, operate, and maintain HOT lanes in
the Bay Area. Much of the revenue generated by these lanes
will be used in the same corridor for preconstruction,
construction, and other related costs of HOV facilities and
the improvement and support of transit services within the
corridor. Unfortunately, other Bay Area counties do not have
access to these potential benefits.
The author and sponsor (MTC) argue that there are many gaps in
the current HOV lane system in the region. Filling those gaps
would create a seamless network of unobstructed lanes, which
would provide a much faster commute for the carpooler and bus
riders who currently use them. With existing revenues,
however, this network could not be completed for another 30
years. Revenues generated by the express lane network could
fund its completion within the next 10 years.
According to the author, a regional, express lane network will
provide Bay Area commuters with an effectively managed freeway
system with higher vehicle and passenger throughput and a
reduction in delay within each travel corridor. In comparison
to a traditional carpool lane system, a regional HOT lane
network would save 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide,
and also result in significantly lower particulate matter and
nitrous oxide emissions. The author concludes that an express
lane network would provide an efficient, effective,
consistent, and seamless freeway system for Bay Area
commuters.
2.Description of the project . The proposed network would be
developed by converting 500 miles of existing or fully funded
HOV lanes to HOT lanes and constructing an additional 300
miles of new lanes. Of the 300 miles of new lanes, 180 miles
are to close gaps in the existing HOV lane network, while 120
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 8
miles represents an extension of the system to new areas. The
lanes would remain free of charge for carpools and buses, but
would be accessible to vehicles not meeting the occupancy
requirement for a variable toll that would be collected
electronically via FasTrak and adjusted in real time to
maintain free-flow conditions in the HOT lanes.
3.Policy shifts . The express lane network proposed by this bill
may signal two significant policy shifts from HOV and HOT lane
policies that the state has adopted heretofore. The first
relates to the fundamental purpose served by HOV lanes, while
the second policy concerns the use of revenues derived from
HOT lanes. The extent of the shift will depend, in large
part, on the revenues generated by each corridor in the
network and decisions regarding the management of demand for
HOT lanes over time.
Increasing throughput vs. raising revenue. The purpose of HOV
facilities is to increase the total number of people moved
through a congested corridor by offering two kinds of travel
incentives: a substantial savings in travel time and to
provide a reliable and predictable travel time. Because HOV
lanes carry vehicles with a higher number of occupants, they
move significantly more people during congested periods, even
if the number of vehicles that use the HOV lane is lower than
on the adjoining general purpose lanes. In general,
carpoolers, vanpoolers, and bus patrons are the primary
beneficiaries of HOV lanes by allowing them to move through
congestion.
To the extent there is excess capacity in an HOV lane,
allowing SOVs to access the lane for a fee provides a more
efficient use of existing highway capacity while also
generating revenue that may be reinvested in the
transportation system. If HOV lane volumes are low,
converting to HOT lanes makes good use of excess capacity and
improves the overall efficiency of the freeway system.
Two conditions exist that raise a potential conflict between
the traditional purpose of HOV lanes to increase throughput
and the purpose to generate revenue: several HOV segments are
currently congested during peak hours and many nontolled,
general purpose lanes are projected to become increasingly
congested in the future. As the nontolled, general purpose
lanes become more congested, there will be greater demand for
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 9
the HOT lanes, which will contribute to revenue growth. If
congestion develops in a HOT lane, however, the lane will
generate little revenue and may fail to cover its operating
costs.
Congestion in an HOV lane due to carpoolers signals a need to
increase occupancy standards for vehicles authorized to access
the lane. Congestion in a HOT lane, however, may be due to
either carpoolers or SOVs and so may be addressed by
increasing either occupancy standards or the price of the
toll. This situation raises several questions the committee
may wish to consider:
Once HOV lanes are converted into HOT lanes, how will
the authority determine how much congestion is due to
carpoolers vs. SOVs? Will it opt to increase occupancy
standards in order to accommodate SOVs?
What impact will raising occupancy standards have on
carpooling, especially on segments where the occupancy
standard is currently 3+? Will drivers and their
passengers choose or be able to incorporate another person
in the carpool or will adding another become infeasible?
If the goal is to enhance throughput, would it be
appropriate to charge vehicles with 2 or 3 occupants the
same toll as an SOV?
At what point does the tolling policy, which accounts
for an occupancy standard, favor revenue-generating SOVs
rather than throughput-enhancing HOVs? Is that point
knowable?
The bill does not speak to these situations. In response to
some of these questions, the sponsor notes that in cases where
congestion exists in an HOV lane presently, occupancy
standards should be increased regardless of whether or not
SOVs are permitted access. Further, the sponsor suggests that
it could raise the occupancy standard, and vary toll rates
according to the occupancy of the vehicle such that free
passage would be granted to those who meet the standard and
reduced rate passage to those who carpool but do not meet the
standard.
Tolling technology in its present state does not possess the
capability of distinguishing the number of people in a
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 10
vehicle. A pilot study is beginning in the I-15 corridor in
San Diego County to assess whether infrared cameras are
capable of doing so, but even if that technology proves
capable, it will be many years before it would become
available for use on a large scale.
While it is the sponsor's intent to allow carpoolers to access
the lanes for free, the shift in policy from an emphasis on
enhancing throughput to one of generating revenue is
reinforced by language in the bill that permits, but does not
require, BATA to offer free or reduce rate passage to
carpoolers.
The committee may wish to consider the extent to which it
wants to preserve the function of HOV lanes in encouraging
higher vehicle occupancy travel. To this end, the committee
may wish to consider amending the bill to:
Require explicitly free passage for carpoolers;
State explicitly that a toll policy should maximize
throughput over revenue generation; and/or
Establish, or require the authority to establish, a
standard at which point access to the HOT lanes by SOVs
would be denied.
Source of revenue vs. use of revenue. A policy reflected in
every HOT lane bill the Legislature has considered is the
requirement that toll revenues be reinvested into the same
corridor from which they were generated. The premise for this
policy is two-fold. First is the belief that those who pay
for the facility should benefit from that investment. The
second is, to the extent that toll lanes may benefit some user
groups more than others, revenues can be invested in
infrastructure or service that offsets those disproportionate
benefits. For example, if higher-income drivers benefit more
from tolled lanes, then revenue from those lanes can be used
for either nontolled lanes or transit service from which
lower-income drivers may also benefit.
The bill speaks to this principle by requiring that 95 percent
of net revenue be reinvested in the corridor in proportion to
the toll revenue generated from it. The extent to which there
is net corridor revenue, however, depends on many factors,
including the costs to develop the facility and the extent to
which the facility generates sufficient revenue to cover the
costs of construction, operation, and maintenance.
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 11
MTC estimates the project will cost approximately $7.6 billion
to build, finance, and operate the network over the next 25
years and generate $13.7 billion in revenue, leaving a net
revenue of $6.1 billion.
Professor Pravin Varaiya with the University of California,
Berkeley raises question about some of the revenue forecasts
used by MTC, as well as other toll road operators around the
country. In his analysis, Professor Varaiya suggests that
toll revenues from I-680 South would be unlikely to cover its
operational costs, let alone its capital costs. While the
capital costs for I-680 will mostly be derived from other
sources, Professor Varaiya suggests that over-estimating
revenue is a common problem among toll operators (and their
consultants) around the country.
Additionally, the capital costs of some projects will depend
on the extent to which BATA is able to utilize what is
referred to as a "rapid delivery approach" on some projects.
A rapid delivery approach assumes converting existing HOV
lanes into HOT lanes with design exceptions approved by
Caltrans. Design exceptions allow BATA to avoid expanding the
highway right-of-way and ensure more timely delivery. Without
them, some projects will require right-of-way acquisition and
may create environmental impacts, thereby increasing costs and
time. It is unclear that design exceptions for all highway
segments for which they would be sought are appropriate or
will be granted. The Contra Costa County Transportation
Authority, for example, has raised safety and operational
concerns about converting HOV lanes on segments of I-80 and
I-680 in Contra Costa County.
Finally, if toll revenues from each corridor in the network
are pooled together to finance the development of HOT lanes
throughout the network and the goal is to build the network
within the next seven to eight years, how much net revenue is
reasonable to expect in the short-term? How will it be
calculated, particularly for those corridors in which
high-performing HOT lanes end up subsidizing the development
of HOT lanes in other corridors?
In sum, the idea of redistributing net revenues to the
corridors to fund projects and programs in the corridor
investment plan is in keeping with the spirit of previous HOT
lane authorities contained in statute, but questions remain
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 12
regarding which corridors would actually receive revenue, when
the revenue would be forthcoming, and how much the corridors
would receive.
4.Related legislation . SB 1175 (Torlakson), among other things,
adds the Antioch and Dumbarton bridges to the state toll
bridge seismic retrofit program and requires BATA to increase
bridge toll rates for purposes of completing those projects.
5.Use of bridge toll revenues . Under this bill, toll bridge
revenues may be used to fund the network or be pledged to
secure bonds to raise funds for the network, and it allows
BATA to increase toll rates if necessary to uphold its
obligations to bondholders. This provision creates the
possibility that drivers who use any of the seven state-owned
bridges may bear the cost of projects within the network if
they fail to perform as projected.
According to MTC, with BATA's credit rating, pledging bridge
toll revenues dramatically reduces the financing costs
associated with the network. MTC further argues that pledging
bridge toll revenues will be a secondary form of credit
support, behind projected toll revenues from the HOT lane
facility for which financing is being sought and projected
toll revenues from the network as a whole. Finally, MTC
indicates that in the event that bridge toll revenues are used
to fund the network, they would likely come from BATA's
reserves in the form of loans.
One question the committee may wish to consider concerns the
extent to which it is comfortable pledging bridge tolls for
the network and whether it may be appropriate to establish
some parameters for the use of those revenues.
6.BATA's powers . This bill expands BATA's authority in a
significant manner and establishes broad control over the
network without specifying limits or parameters. Currently
BATA's authority is limited to the Bay Area toll bridges, but
under this measure, BATA would have authority for 800 miles of
HOT lanes. Under current law, HOT lanes would be developed by
either Caltrans or the county-wide transportation agency in
cooperation with Caltrans. Other ways in which the bill
grants BATA broad control over the network include:
The bill gives BATA the authority to develop HOT lanes
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 13
within the "network," but the bill does not define the
network. Instead, the authority, along with the oversight
committee, would determine the geographic boundaries of the
network and the corridors within it. Furthermore, while
MTC does not appear to intend to convert general purpose
lanes into HOT lanes, this bill does not preclude BATA from
doing so.
Corridor working groups offer proposals and
recommendations to the authority for the corridor
investment plan, but BATA retains authority to approve or
reject the plan, regardless of whether county congestion
management agencies approve it.
The bill specifies that toll revenues generated from the
network shall be used to pay debt service, repay loans, and
provide for direct expenses of operating the network.
Excess revenues, or net revenues, may be used for programs
and policies in the corridor investment plan. There are no
requirements or limitations on what may be included in a
corridor investment plan, other than priority shall be
given to projects that reduce emissions and provide
transit. The committee may wish to consider whether it
would like to establish parameters for the use of net
revenue, for example, limiting it to projects that improve
throughput through the corridor.
The bill gives BATA authority for elements of highway
projects that typically fall under the purview of Caltrans.
For example, Caltrans is the lead agency for all projects
on the state highway system unless it agrees to relinquish
that authority, however, this bill authorizes BATA to be
the lead agency. Additionally, the bill provides that
corridor working groups should make recommendations as to
which state, regional, or local agency should perform work
described in the corridor investment plan. The regional
HOT lane network will be part of the state highway system
and as such, Caltrans should maintain its responsibilities
for these lanes as it does for the rest of the system. For
this reason, the committee may wish to consider an
amendment to either delete this provision or specify that
Caltrans is the lead agency unless it relinquishes its
authority to BATA.
The bill seeks to prohibit the state from authorizing
other HOT lane facilities in the Bay Area. Any HOT lanes
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 14
developed within the nine-county jurisdiction of MTC would
be operated by BATA.
7.Who is doing what ? The bill authorizes BATA to "acquire,
administer, and operate" a regional HOT lane network. Because
the HOT lanes developed under this bill would be part of the
state highway system, it is unclear what is meant by
"acquire." Furthermore, the bill does not grant BATA
authority to "construct," "maintain," or "rehabilitate" these
roads. Who is responsible for these activities? In response
to questions regarding how "project" would be defined and what
entity would be responsible for constructing a project, MTC
offers that "decisions on these have not yet made and would be
appropriately made on a case-by-case basis as a one-size fits
all approach almost certainly wouldn't be the best solution."
The bill could maintain flexibility with regard to what agency
will be responsible for certain activities while also
authorizing BATA to conduct them, such as maintenance. The
committee may wish to consider amending the bill to specify
BATA's authority with regard to constructing, maintaining, and
rehabilitating segments.
8.Greenhouse gas emissions and transit investment . The author
asserts that the development of the express lane network will
result in a reduction of approximately 10 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide over the next 40 years. The reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions is attributed principally to the
reduction in congestion that may accompany the effective
expansion of capacity and to the completion of the HOV system
sooner than anticipated, which will provide increased
opportunities for carpooling. The Sierra Club, writing in
opposition to this measure, argues: "Research on freeway
construction projects shows that while increasing freeway
capacity may yield a short-term decrease in emissions, we can
expect a much larger emissions increase in the long-run as
reduced congestion induces more demand." The Sierra Club
points to research by the San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research League that estimates the network will ultimately
produce 67,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
To address mobility, social equity, and environmental goals,
the bill specifically highlights transit investment as an
element of the corridor investment plan and requires that
corridor working groups consult with transit operators when
developing their investment plan. The extent to which transit
service is enhanced, however, will depend on the extent to
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 15
which there are sufficient net revenues available after paying
for construction, operations, and maintenance, and to which
transit service is a priority of the corridor working group
and the authority. Transit investment is not guaranteed nor
is it required. Furthermore, while the bill requires working
groups to consult with transit operators, transit operators
are not included in corridor working groups. One question the
committee may wish to consider is whether the transit
provisions of this bill could be strengthened, for example, by
requiring upfront investment in enhanced transit service to
occur concurrently with highway expansion, by requiring that
transit operators be included in corridor working groups, or
by establishing a set-aside of net corridor revenue that must
be used for enhanced transit.
9.Social equity . To critics, HOT lanes are best characterized
as "Lexus Lanes" as new facilities are developed for those
motorists who can afford to pay to use them, leaving those
unable to pay mired in traffic congestion. Not only is new
capacity built for those who can pay, but there is also
concern that improvements made to the facility over time may
become concentrated in the tolled lanes.
To help address this issue, the bill provides that corridor
investment plans shall include an analysis of equity issues
and a proposal for how to minimize any inequities identified.
The sponsor notes that most HOT lane users are lower- and
middle-income drivers, and points to a Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo study of the State Route 91 Express Lanes in Orange
County, which found use to be more closely tied to current
travel conditions and trip needs than to income.
Focusing on the value of time instead of the price of the toll
presents a different story. In operating its value-pricing
demonstration program in San Diego County, the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) has suggested that
lower-income drivers are occasional users of the facility and
access HOT lanes when on-time arrival is particularly
important. SANDAG suggests that the value of time savings may
be greater to lower-income drivers who may be more negatively
impacted by being delayed by traffic congestion. If work,
such as painting or cleaning houses, requires traveling, it
may be worth more to accommodate an additional job or
appointment. HOT lanes provide lower-income drivers an option
when presented with difficult circumstances, for example,
being late to work on occasion or having to commute long
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 16
distances due to a lack of affordable housing near their place
of employment.
10.Access to low-emission vehicles . Federal law permits states
to allow certain low-emission vehicles to use HOV lanes
regardless of the vehicle's occupancy. Under this authority,
state law allows certain low-emission vehicles may access HOV
lanes if they have proper insignia. All-electric and some
compressed natural gas vehicles are issued white stickers and
hybrids are issued yellow stickers. White-stickered vehicles
using the HOV lane may use the Bay Area toll bridges without
being charged a toll. Access to HOV lanes by these vehicles
expires January 1, 2011, however, there are several pending in
the Legislature that would extend this sunset date for
white-stickered vehicles or allow a new class of low-emission
vehicle to access the lanes.
This bill allows the authority to grant free or reduced rate
passage on the HOT lanes to low-emission vehicles in a manner
compliant with federal law, but in doing so, allows the
authority to disregard state law. In other words, the bill
gives BATA the authority to determine whether or not to allow
low-emission vehicles to access HOT lanes without paying a
toll, even if state law permits it. MTC argues that this
provision gives the authority flexibility to adopt a fee
structure that protects the operational and financial needs of
the network.
In granting such access to low-emission vehicles, the
Legislature did not contemplate not allowing access on certain
facilities or in certain areas, and currently low-emission
vehicles are permitted on all HOV/HOT facilities in the state.
Furthermore, allowing a vehicle to access a HOT lane in one
area but not in another may detract from the purpose of
incentivizing the purchase of low-emission vehicles while also
confusing the drivers of those vehicles.
The committee may wish to consider whether it would like to
establish a consistent, statewide policy with regard to
allowing low-emission vehicles to access HOV/HOT lanes.
11. Maintenance . Maintenance of the network is not clearly
addressed in the bill. Given the shortage of funding for the
State Highway Operations and Preservation Program (SHOPP),
maintenance of the facilities should be funded by toll
revenues. While the bill provides that toll revenues may be
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 17
spent on maintenance, it does not explicitly require BATA to
use toll revenues for that purpose. The committee may wish to
consider an amendment stating that BATA shall be responsible
for funding the maintenance of the HOT lane facilities
developed under this authority.
12. Reporting . The bill contains no reporting. The committee
may wish to consider that BATA provide an annual report to the
Legislature and to the CTC that describes its activities,
including but not limited to, the following elements:
a. A description of the network and each corridor.
b. A description of the projects that are planned, under
development, and in operation, including the lead agencies
for each project and the date the facility is or is
expected to be placed in service.
c. The costs of each project and an explanation of the
project's financing plan.
d. The amount of toll revenues collected in each corridor
and for the network as a whole.
e. Expenditures made from toll revenues for each corridor
and for the network as a whole.
f. The amount of net revenue distributed to each corridor
and a description of how those funds will be or are used
for each corridor.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 798 (Nava) establishes the California Transportation
Financing Authority to assist transportation agencies in
obtaining financing, primarily through issuing bonds backed by
specified sources of revenue, to develop transportation
projects. In doing so, the bill allows the authority to permit
agencies to impose tolls for use of facilities constructed.
AB 1175 (Torlakson), among other provisions, adds the Antioch
and Dumbarton bridges to the state toll bridge seismic retrofit
program and allows BATA to increase bridge toll rates for
purposes of completing those projects.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 58-18
Appr: 13-4
Trans: 12-1
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
AB 744 (TORRICO) Page 18
Wednesday,
July 1, 2009)
SUPPORT: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (sponsor)
AAA of Northern California
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (in
concept)
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency
(in concept)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
California Alliance for Jobs
California Transit Association
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Solano Transportation Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
OPPOSED: Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
Sierra Club
West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory
Committee