BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1043|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1043
Author: Salas (D)
Introduced:2/26/15
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/16/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire,
Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Gaines
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 60-14, 5/7/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Highways: State Highway Route 43
SOURCE: Author
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:
Existing law:
1)Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to
adopt every two years the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a plan that determines which state highway,
intercity rail, or public transit projects will be funded by
AB 1043
Page 2
the state and when they will be constructed. Regional
transportation agencies propose projects to be included in the
STIP through regional transportation plans.
2)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).
3)Divides the funds dedicated to the regionally proposed
projects in the STIP geographically 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%. These regional funds are further divided
into county shares based on population and highway center-line
miles.
4)Requires Caltrans to make recommendations to the CTC for
projects to be included in the ITIP based on different
statutory formulas. Existing law limits 60% of funds in the
ITIP either to highway projects outside of urbanized areas or
intercity rail projects.
5)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.
6)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:
a) Carry a major portion of the trips entering, traveling
through, or leaving the state;
b) Serve corridors of substantial statewide, interstate,
and international significance;
c) Connect all metropolitan areas and those urban areas
with population concentrations over 2,500 and all county
seats not otherwise served; or
d) Serve those agricultural, natural resource, or
AB 1043
Page 3
public-owned recreational areas, and other
travel-generating areas of statewide or major regional
importance not otherwise served.
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
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 this 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 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.
Funding constraints. Due to a variety of external pressures,
total STIP funding has declined significantly over time. In
2002, more than $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.
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.
AB 1043
Page 4
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.
Prior Legislation
AB 680 (Salas, 2013) proposed the same addition to the ITIP as
this bill. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill is
likely to incur unknown future cost pressures in the millions,
beginning in 2016-17, to provide state ITIP funds for
improvements on SR 43 (State Highway Account), potentially
displacing funding for other interregional projects.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/28/15)
City of Corcoran
Fresno Council of Governments
JG Boswell Company
Kern Council of Governments
Kings County Association of Governments
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/28/15)
None received
AB 1043
Page 5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 60-14, 5/7/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Grove, Hadley, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine,
Lopez, Low, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian,
Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Beth Gaines,
Harper, Jones, Kim, Linder, Maienschein, Mayes, Melendez,
Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Dahle, Gallagher, Roger Hernández,
Steinorth, Wilk
Prepared by:Eric Thronson / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
9/1/15 21:30:31
**** END ****