BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1043
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
1043 (Salas)
As Enrolled September 10, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+----------------------+---------------------|
|Transportation |13-2 |Frazier, Achadjian, |Kim, Melendez |
| | |Baker, Bloom, Campos, | |
| | |Chu, Daly, Dodd, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Medina, | |
| | |Nazarian, O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo |Wagner |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, Weber, | |
| | |Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |60-14 |(May 7, 2015) |SENATE: |31-8 |(September 8, |
| | | | | |2015) |
AB 1043
Page 2
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
AB 1043
Page 3
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: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, "Addition of this route could change priorities for
funding interregional projects, but would not likely change the
level of funding made available for such projects."
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% of the total vehicle miles travelled 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.
AB 1043
Page 4
2)Serve corridors of substantial statewide, interstate, and
international significance.
3)Connect all metropolitan areas and those urban areas with
populations concentrations over 25,000 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
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.
This bill would add SR 43 to the statutorily defined
AB 1043
Page 5
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.
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of
this bill.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill adds State Route 43 to the list of interregional
routes, thereby making it eligible to compete for state
interregional funds to cover the costs of capital improvement
projects.
However, Caltrans has determined that State Route 43 is not an
interregional route eligible for this funding. Therefore, I
cannot sign this bill.
A better alternative to funding improvements to State Route 43
is to enact a long-term, sustainable transportation funding
solution in the current special session.
Analysis Prepared by:
Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN:
0002512
AB 1043
Page 6