BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 194 Hearing Date: 7/14/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Frazier |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |7/2/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Randy Chinn |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: High-occupancy toll lanes
DIGEST: This bill authorizes regional transportation agencies
and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to
develop high-occupancy toll lanes and other toll facilities
without limitation.
ANALYSIS:
High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes are lanes where carpools can
travel for free or at a reduced charge and other vehicles may
travel upon payment of a higher charge, which varies based on
congestion. An agency operating a HOT lane essentially sells
excess capacity in undersubscribed high-occupancy vehicle lanes
to single-occupant vehicle drivers by charging a toll. HOT
lanes typically employ a pricing method known as value pricing
or congestion pricing. Under this scheme, the amount of the
toll varies in accordance with the level of congestion in that
particular lane, such that as congestion increases, so too will
the toll amount. As the price to use the lane goes up, fewer
people presumably will choose to use it, thereby reducing demand
for the facility and maintaining free-flow travel conditions.
With this mechanism, an agency can ensure that operation of the
toll facility does not undermine the intended benefits of
promoting carpooling with access to the faster high-occupancy
vehicle lane.
HOT lanes are increasingly being implemented in metropolitan
areas around the state and nation. Transportation agencies have
AB 194 (Frazier) PageB of?
been hot for HOT lanes for years, viewing them as a way to more
efficiently use freeway capacity and to help fund expansion of
high-occupancy vehicle, or carpool, lanes and transit service.
The California Transportation Agency has established a goal of
expanding the use of HOT lanes<1>. The counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Alameda all have existing
HOT lanes.
Existing law limits the number of HOT lane projects to four, two
each in Northern and Southern California.
This bill:
1)Authorizes regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to
build and operate HOT lanes or other toll facilities without
limit, subject to review and approval by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).
2)Requires the CTC to hold at least one public hearing before
approving a toll facility.
3)Requires the CTC to develop eligibility criteria, which
include a demonstration that the proposed facility will
improve the corridor's performance, that the proposed facility
is consistent with the regional transportation plan, and
evidence of cooperation between Caltrans and the regional
transportation authority.
4)Requires the CTC to develop guidelines for the development and
operation of the toll facility, including that the applicant
shall:
a) Develop and operate the facilities in cooperation with
Caltrans or the regional transportation agency, as
appropriate, and with the active participation of the
California Highway Patrol;
b) Be responsible for establishing, collecting and
administering tolls;
c) Be responsible for paying for the maintenance of the
facilities; and
d) Ensure that the revenues generated from the operation of
the facilities shall pay for the direct expense of
--------------------------
<1> California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities: Vision
and Interim Recommendations, California State Transportation
Agency; February 5, 2014.
AB 194 (Frazier) PageC of?
operating the facilities, limiting the administrative
expenses to 3%, and that all remaining revenue be used in
the corridor in which it is was generated.
1)Authorizes regional transportation agencies to issue bonds to
finance the construction of toll facilities.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, it is clear that California
is in the embryonic stage of a substantial build-out of HOT
lanes. Regional transportation agencies, as well as Caltrans,
struggle with meeting the challenges of increasing traffic
congestion and decreasing transportation revenue. Given the
success of multiple HOT lane demonstration programs to date,
it is appropriate now to provide an administrative process
whereby regional transportation agencies and Caltrans can work
together with the CTC to develop and operate HOT lane
facilities.
2)No bill needed. The primary purpose of this bill is to make
the decision of allowing a toll lane or toll road
administrative, through the CTC, rather than legislative.
Recent California legislative history has supported toll lanes
and roads (see related bill section below); they are no
longer unique or unusual. All of the bridges across San
Francisco Bay are toll bridges, five state routes in Southern
California are toll only, and HOT lanes are widespread
throughout the state.
As tolling becomes more widespread, questions about social
equity arise. While there may well be economic justification
for allowing drivers to buy their way into the carpool lane,
resentment from those who can't afford to pay is
understandable, given that all drivers pay gas taxes,
registration fees, and vehicle license fees. This bill does
not direct any of the toll revenue to improving public transit
service or assisting disadvantaged communities. Those
decisions are left to the regional transportation agencies.
Supporters argue that HOT lanes generate revenue that can be
used to benefit those who don't use the lanes. In Los
Angeles, tolls from the HOT lanes on State Routes 10 and 110
have generated tens of millions of dollars for the Los Angeles
Metro, which has used that funding to increase bus service.
AB 194 (Frazier) PageD of?
3)Negotiations continue. The author is working with the
administration on potential amendments to the bill. Areas of
discussion include the role of Caltrans and the CTC in
projects proposed and funded by regional transportation
agencies, and the specifics of the reimbursements to the state
departments and agencies for the activities they perform in
the development and operation of the facility. In general,
the principle underlying the bill is that the revenue
expenditures and tolling policies are the purview of the
agency, whether a regional transportation agency or Caltrans,
that is assuming the responsibility for the project
development and financing.
Related Legislation:
SB 983 (Hernández, 2014) - was similar to AB 194. SB 983 was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1298 (Hernández, Chapter 531, Statutes of 2014) - repealed
and recast specific authority for the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to operate a value-pricing
and transit-development program, including HOT lanes on State
Routes 10 and 110.
AB 2250 (Daly, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2014) - requires any
revenue generated in toll lanes to be used in the corridor in
which it was generated.
AB 1467 (Núñez, Chapter 32, Statutes of 2005) - originally
granted authority to the CTC to review regional transportation
agencies' applications for HOT lanes, for up to four projects,
until January 1, 2012.
AB 2032 (Dutra, Chapter 418 of 2004) - authorized HOT lane
facilities in Alameda, San Diego, and Santa Clara counties.
AB 713 (Goldsmith, Chapter 962, Statutes of 1993) - authorized a
HOT lane facility in San Diego County.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 62-17
Appr: 11-3
Trans: 14-1
AB 194 (Frazier) PageE of?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
July 8, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
Self-Help Counties Coalition (sponsor)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
American Society of Civil Engineers Region 9
Bay Area Council
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association of Councils of Governments
California Transportation Commission
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
HNTB
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --