BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 680
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: salas
VERSION: 3/19/13
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 18, 2013
SUBJECT:
Interregional highway funding
DESCRIPTION:
This bill adds roughly 100 miles of rural highway to the routes
eligible for interregional funding by adding State Route 43 to
the list of interregional routes.
ANALYSIS:
Every two years, the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
adopts the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a
plan that determines which state highway, intercity rail, or
public transit projects will be funded by the state and when
they will be constructed. Regional transportation agencies
propose projects to be included in the STIP through regional
transportation plans. Existing law requires that 75 percent of
all STIP funds be used for these regional projects. The
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends projects for
the remaining 25 percent of funding, and those projects are
included in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP).
Existing law geographically divides the funds dedicated to the
regionally-proposed projects in the STIP by what is known as the
north-south split. Statute allocates 60 percent of these funds
to the 13 southernmost counties, while all other counties
receive the remaining 40 percent. Existing law further divides
the regional funds into county shares based on population and
highway center line miles.
Caltrans makes recommendations to the CTC for projects to be
included in the ITIP based on different statutory formulas.
Existing law limits 60 percent of funds in the ITIP either to
highway projects outside of urbanized areas or intercity rail
projects. Statute specifies the 93 interregional state routes
AB 680 (SALAS) Page 2
providing access to and links between the state's urban and
rural regions that are eligible to compete for this portion of
ITIP funding. Existing law requires ITIP funding be used
exclusively for transportation improvement projects that
facilitate interregional movement of people and goods. Caltrans
guidelines require that interregional routes accomplish one of
the following:
Carry a major portion of the trips entering, traveling
through, or leaving the state;
Serve corridors of substantial statewide, interstate,
and international significance;
Connect all metropolitan areas and those urban areas
with population concentrations over 2,500 and all county
seats not otherwise served; or
Serve those agricultural, natural resource, or
public-owned recreational areas, and other
travel-generating areas of statewide or major regional
importance not otherwise served.
Due to a variety of external pressures, total STIP funding has
declined significantly over time. In 2002, over $7 billion was
available to be programmed for new transportation projects over
the following five years. In 2012, only half that amount, or
roughly $3.5 billion, was available to program new projects in
the five years following the adoption of the plan. Because it
is determined by statutory formula, the amount available for
ITIP funding has decreased proportionally over that time.
This bill adds roughly 100 miles of rural highway to the routes
eligible for ITIP funding by adding State Route (SR) 43 to the
list of interregional routes.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, it is important to add SR
43 to the list of routes eligible for ITIP funding because of
its level of truck traffic and overall traffic volume. The
bill's sponsor, Kings County Association of Governments
(KCAG), emphasizes that commuters use SR 43 from Fresno,
Corcoran, and Wasco to get to two state prisons that are
located on SR 43. Furthermore, the sponsor notes that, in
times of accidents on State Highway 99,
SR 43 is used as an alternate route and is easily overwhelmed
with traffic. The author contends that it is only fair that
SR 43 be eligible to compete for specific transportation funds
dedicated to interregional transportation projects.
AB 680 (SALAS) Page 3
2.Is this an interregional route ? SR 43 appears to generally
run within one particular region of California. Extending
from south of Fresno to just west of Bakersfield and
paralleling State Highway 99, this route doesn't seem to
connect two or more regions but instead bisects or traverses
one general region of the state. Further, it is not clear
that SR 43 meets the general definition of an interregional
route contained in Caltrans guidelines. It certainly does not
carry a major portion of trips entering or leaving the state.
Nor does it connect urban areas or provide access to
agricultural or recreational areas not otherwise served, as it
runs parallel to State Highway 99 and services generally the
same areas. Given the scarce resources dedicated to
interregional routes, the committee may want to consider
whether it should define a route as eligible for interregional
funding that questionably qualifies as an interregional route.
3.Inviting too many guests to the party . The Legislature has
included about 68 percent of the state highway system in the
statutorily-designated interregional road system, while only
25 percent of STIP funding is dedicated to the ITIP. With
dwindling resources for every part of the STIP, the challenge
of qualifying for ITIP funding has increased. Adding
additional routes to the statutorily-designated interregional
road system is akin to inviting too many guests to a party at
a local restaurant. The eatery is at capacity, and there is a
long line of guests waiting to get in. While adding one more
guest to the end of the line may not impact the crowded
restaurant, it may not provide much benefit to the newest
invitee either. Given the already crowded list of state
routes eligible for ITIP funding, the committee may want to
consider the benefit of adding names to an already overbooked
guest list.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 54-18
Appr: 12-5
Trans: 12-4
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 12,
2013.)
SUPPORT: City of Corcoran
City of Hanford
AB 680 (SALAS) Page 4
City of Wasco
Kern Council of Governments
Kern County Supervisor David Couch
Kings County Association of Governments
Kings County Sheriff David Robinson
OPPOSED: None received.