BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 13, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION


                                 Jim Frazier, Chair


          AB 1043  
          (Salas) - As Introduced February 26, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Highways:  State Highway Route 43


          SUMMARY:  Adds State Highway Route (SR) 43 to the list of  
          interregional and intercounty highway routes that are eligible  
          to use specific state transportation funds.
            
          EXISTING LAW:  





          1)Establishes the state highway system through a listing and  
            description of segments of the state's regional and  
            interregional roads that are owned and operated by the  
            Department of Transportation (Caltrans).  A "state highway" is  
            defined as any roadway that is acquired, laid out,  
            constructed, improved, or maintained as a state highway  
            pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization.  

          2)Further defines the interregional road system as a subset of  
            the state highway system.  

          3)Requires certain transportation funds to be made available for  
            transportation capital improvement projects and to be  








                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  2





            programmed and expended for interregional and regional  
            improvements.  

          4)Directs the allocation of funds for transportation capital  
            improvements as follows:

             a)   Twenty-five percent for interregional improvements as  
               identified in the Interregional Transportation Improvement  
               Program (ITIP); and,

             b)   Seventy-five percent for regional improvements, as  
               identified in regional transportation improvement programs.  
                

          5)Of the 25% of funds for interregional improvements, 60% of  
            these funds must be used for improvements on highways  
            identified in statute as part of the interregional road system  
            and outside the boundaries of an urban area and for intercity  
            rail improvements; the remaining 40% of funds made available  
            to the state for work on other state highways must be  
            distributed 40% to northern California counties and 60% to  
            southern California counties.  



          FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown  





          COMMENTS:  The state highway system serves a diverse range of  
          needs for the interregional movement of people and goods between  
          rural and highly urbanized areas.  While all state routes are  
          important, the interstate system, interregional road system  
          routes, and other major freeway trade corridors form a  
          transportation network that is most critical to interregional  
          mobility and connectivity statewide.  Together, these routes  
          carry over 80 percent of the total vehicle miles travelled  








                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  3





          annually on the state highway system.  

          The interregional road system is a statutorily defined series of  
          state highway routes, outside the urbanized areas, that provide  
          access to, and links between, the state's economic centers,  
          major recreation areas, and urban and rural regions.  The  
          interregional road system routes are intended to provide the  
          following service:

          1)Carry a major portion of the trips entering, traveling  
            through, or leaving the state.

          2)Serve corridors of substantial statewide, interstate, and  
            international significance.

          3)Connect all metropolitan areas and those urban areas with  
            populations concentrations over 2,5000 and all county seats  
            not otherwise served.

          4)Serve those agricultural, natural resource areas, public-owned  
            recreational areas, and other travel generators of statewide  
            or major regional importance not otherwise served.

          Of the 265 state highway routes, 93 are statutorily designated  
          as interregional routes.  Of these, 10 are considered focus  
          routes--that is, routes that are the highest priority for use of  
          ITIP funds.  Improving these routes to freeway or expressway  
          standards will provide a backbone highway system connecting  
          regions of the state.  Money to provide such improvements,  
          however, is woefully limited.  Funding identified in the 2014  
          ITIP is less than $1.3 billion over the next five years.  This  
          level of funding is well below what is needed to address the  
          preservation and expansion needs of the system.  

          SR 43 is located in the central San Joaquin Valley and traverses  
          the area in a north-south direction.  Agriculture is the most  
          dominant land use along highway corridor.  The route is  
          primarily rural with the exception of segments located within  
          the cities of Wasco, Shafter, and Selma and on the outer fringes  








                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  4





          of Corcoran and Hanford.  The highway often experiences a high  
          volume of truck traffic with several segments experiencing truck  
          counts as high as 30% to 40% of total traffic volume.  

          AB 1043 would add SR 43 to the statutorily defined interregional  
          road system, thereby making it eligible to receive ITIP funds.   
          In theory, adding SR 43 to the list of eligible routes in an  
          already-severely constrained program would increase the  
          competition for funds amongst other interregional routes.  In  
          practice, it is doubtful that SR 43 will rise to the level of a  
          high emphasis route or focus route in the foreseeable future  
          and, consequently, may not present any real competition for  
          these limited funds.  

          Writing in support of the bill, the Kern County Association of  
          Governments notes that commuters use SR 43 from Fresno and  
          Corcoran and Wasco to get to two state prisons that are located  
          on SR 43 and that, in times of accidents on SR 99, SR 43 is used  
          as an alternate route and is easily overwhelmed with traffic.  

          Previous legislation:  AB 680 (Salas) of 2013 was nearly  
          identical to this bill.  AB 680 was held in the Senate  
          Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.

          SB 532 (Cogdill), Chapter 189, Statutes of 2009, added a segment  
          of SR 108 to the interregional road system so that an  
          alternative project on the route could be funded in lieu of the  
          previously programmed Oakdale Bypass project. 

          AB 2143 (Para) of 2006, would have added SR 43 to the  
          interregional road system.  AB 2143 failed passage on the Senate  
          floor.  

          SB 532 (Torlakson) Chapter 598, Statutes of 2003, added a  
          portion of SR 84 and all of SR 239 to the interregional road  
          system.  

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:









                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  5









          Support


          


          Kern County Council of Governments





          Opposition


          


          None on file





          Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093


















                                                                    AB 1043


                                                                    Page  6