BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1043 Hearing Date: 6/16/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Salas |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/26/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Eric Thronson |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Highways: State Highway Route 43
DIGEST: This bill adds roughly 100 miles of rural highway to
the routes eligible for interregional funding by adding State
Route (SR) 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% of all
STIP funds be used for these regional projects. The Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends projects for the
remaining 25% 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% of these funds to the
13 southernmost counties, while all other counties receive the
remaining 40%. 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
AB 1043 (Salas) Page 2 of ?
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
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:
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
population concentrations over 2,500 and all county seats not
otherwise served; or
4)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 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.
Supporters of the bill emphasize that commuters use SR 43 from
Fresno, Corcoran, and Wasco to get to two state prisons that
are located on SR 43. Furthermore, supporters note that, in
times of accidents on SR 99, SR 43 is used as an alternate
AB 1043 (Salas) Page 3 of ?
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.
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 SR 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 SR 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% of the state highway system in the
statutorily designated interregional road system, while only
25% 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.
Related Legislation:
AB 680 (Salas) of 2013 - proposed the same addition to the ITIP
as this bill. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Assembly votes:
AB 1043 (Salas) Page 4 of ?
Floor: 60-14
Appr: 12-5
Trans: 13-2
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 10, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
City of Corcoran
Fresno Council of Governments
JG Boswell Company
Kern Council of Governments
Kings County Association of Governments
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --