BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 194|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 194
Author: Frazier (D), et al.
Amended: 9/4/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 7/14/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva,
McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-17, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: High-occupancy toll lanes
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes regional transportation agencies
and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to
develop high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and other toll
facilities without limitation.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/15 require that a toll facility
sponsored by a regional transportation agency shall develop a
plan for expending revenues in excess of that needed to fund the
cost of the toll facility in consultation with Caltrans. For
toll facilities sponsored by Caltrans, it shall develop a plan
for expending excess revenues in consultation with the regional
AB 194
Page 2
transportation agency. The amendments also make enactment of
this bill contingent on the enactment of AB 914 (Brown, 2015), a
bill which authorizes the San Bernardino County Transportation
Commission to create HOT lanes or other toll facilities.
ANALYSIS: 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)States that the sponsor of new toll facilities shall:
a) Enter into an agreement with Caltrans addressing all
matters related to the design, construction, maintenance,
and operation of the facility;
b) Be responsible for reimbursing Caltrans for its costs
related to the toll facility;
c) Be responsible for establishing, collecting, and
administering tolls; and
d) Ensure that the revenues generated from the operation of
the facilities shall pay for the direct expense of
operating the facilities, including the repayment of debt;
that administrative expenses are limited to 3%; and that
all remaining revenue be used in the corridor in which it
is was generated pursuant to an expenditure plan adopted by
the governing board of the regional transportation agency,
AB 194
Page 3
or by the CTC if the sponsor is Caltrans.
5)Authorizes regional transportation agencies to issue bonds to
finance the construction of toll facilities. Such bonds shall
be tax-free and not covered by the full faith and credit of
the state.
Background
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
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. [California Transportation
Infrastructure Priorities: Vision and Interim Recommendations,
California State Transportation Agency; February 5, 2014.] The
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, and
Alameda all have existing HOT lanes.
Comments
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
AB 194
Page 4
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.
No more bills 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; 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
CTC costs of approximately $200,000 per application for due
diligence reviews and approvals of project proposals. Costs
to review proposals submitted by regional transportation
agencies will be reimbursed by the applicant, but CTC would
need additional resources for each proposal submitted by
Caltrans. (State Highway Account)
AB 194
Page 5
Unknown costs to Caltrans and regional transportation agencies
to develop and operate HOT lanes. This bill authorizes
Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to retain up to
3% of toll revenues for administrative expenses related to the
operation of the facilities.
Unknown toll revenue gains for Caltrans and regional
transportation agencies related to the operation of HOT lanes
and other toll facilities. For illustrative purposes, HOT
lanes administered by the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority generate approximately $17 million annually. Excess
revenue must be used within the corridor from which it was
generated.
SUPPORT: (Verified9/8/15)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
American Society of Civil Engineers
Bay Area Council
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association of Councils of Governments
California Transit Association
California Transportation Commission
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
HNTB
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Self-Help Counties Coalition
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/8/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-17, 6/3/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
AB 194
Page 6
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez,
Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Quirk,
Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth,
Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood,
Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Dahle, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Gatto, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Levine,
Mathis, Patterson, Wagner, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang
Prepared by:Randy Chinn / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
9/8/15 16:19:45
**** END ****