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 --