BILL ANALYSIS Ó
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2222 Hearing Date: 6/21/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Holden |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |5/31/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Erin Riches |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit Pass Program
DIGEST: This bill creates a program to fund free or
reduced-fare transit passes for students.
ANALYSIS:
AB 32 (Núñez and Pavley, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) requires
the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a plan to reduce
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It also requires ARB to
ensure that programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
are targeted, to the extent feasible, to the most disadvantaged
communities (DACs) in the state. AB 32 authorizes ARB to
deposit any fees paid by GHG emission sources into the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).
The 2014-15 budget agreement provides that for 2015-16 and
beyond, 25% of GGRF revenues shall be appropriated to the
state's high-speed rail project, 20% for grants under the
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program,
10% to the Transit and Intercity Capital Rail Program (TIRCP),
and 5% to the Low Carbon Transit Operations program (LCTOP).
The remaining 40% is available for annual appropriation by the
Legislature.
The 2014-15 budget agreement established two new transit
assistance programs. TIRCP is a competitive grant program that
funds capital improvements to reduce GHG emissions and modernize
California's intercity, commuter, and urban rail and bus systems
AB 2222 (Holden) Page 2 of ?
to achieve specific policy objectives, with a goal of providing
at least 25% of available funding to projects that provide a
direct benefit to DACs. LCTOP provides operating and capital
assistance for transit agencies to reduce GHG emissions and
improve mobility, with a priority on serving DACs. For agencies
whose service area includes DACs, at least 50% of the total
monies received must be spent on projects that will benefit
DACs. LCTOP funds are allocated to transit agencies pursuant to
the State Transit Assistance statutory formula.
This bill:
1)Creates the Transit Pass Program, to be funded from the GGRF
upon appropriation by the Legislature, and administered by the
state Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
2)Requires the program to support new or existing programs that
provide free- or reduced-fare transit passes to low-income
students at public middle schools, public high schools,
community colleges, the California State University (CSU), or
the University of California (UC).
3)Authorizes an eligible transit provider to consider
prioritizing an application from an eligible participant with
an existing, successful transit pass program, provided the
participant can demonstrate that additional funding will
further reduce the cost of the transit pass or expand program
eligibility.
4)Requires Caltrans, in coordination with ARB, to develop
guidelines and reporting requirements for the program,
including but not limited to requiring participants to
demonstrate that proposed expenditures will reduce GHG
emissions; ensuring program funds are used to expand
eligibility or further reduce the cost of a transit pass; and
developing performance measures to evaluate whether the
program is increasing transit ridership among students.
5)Requires transit providers and participants to enter into
agreements to ensure that free or reduced-fare transit passes
are distributed to students.
6)Authorizes funds from AHSC, LCTOP, and other low-carbon
transportation programs to be used to augment a free or
reduced-fare transit pass program.
AB 2222 (Holden) Page 3 of ?
7)Requires that free or reduced-fare transit passes offered
under the program are counted at full retail value for the
purposes of the transit provider's eligibility for State
Transit Assistance funding.
8)Provides that each eligible transit provider shall receive
$20,000 from the program; after that initial amount is
allocated, remaining program funds shall be distributed
pursuant to the State Transit Assistance formula. Any funds
allocated, but not distributed, during a fiscal year shall be
distributed the following fiscal year.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author states that it is difficult for students
to afford the cost of purchasing, fueling, and maintaining a
car in addition to tuition and other student fees. The author
states that transit pass programs have proven to be
successful; for example, programs at UC Davis and CSU
Sacramento increased transit ridership by over 70%, and
similar programs at Rio Hondo Community College and Pasadena
City College improved student transit ridership by 40%.
However, transit pass programs tend to be small and
student-driven. This bill encourages transit agencies to
increase transit pass programs to more schools and students
across the state. By doing so, this bill seeks to provide
California's low-income students with an affordable
alternative to using cars to travel to and from school, reduce
vehicle miles traveled, and instill transit ridership into the
next generation of Californians.
2)Why another new program? The Legislature just established a
new transit operations assistance program, LCTOP, in the
2014-15 budget agreement. LCTOP funds can be used for transit
pass programs; in fact, the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA), writing in support of this bill, notes that
it used LCTOP funds to establish a reduced-fare transit pass
program for youths aged 6-18. According to OCTA, program
funds from this bill could help it expand its transit pass
program. Creating a new statewide program, however, along
with developing guidelines and reporting requirements, is a
process that will take a number of months, as opposed to
AB 2222 (Holden) Page 4 of ?
simply increasing the appropriation to LCTOP. The author
states that LCTOP does not require funds to be used on transit
passes, and that many larger agencies instead use the money
for new equipment and infrastructure. The author further
states that LCTOP conditions much of the funding on
continuously expanding services, and that many agencies
indicate they would not take the money if it forced them to
add new service each year rather than handing out passes for
existing routes close to schools.
3)Appropriate use of GGRF funds? Existing law requires GGRF
monies to be used to facilitate the achievement of GHG
emissions reductions. The author cites a UCLA study finding
that high school and college students represent one of the
largest segments of "drive-alone" automobile users in the
state. This study found that providing free or low-cost
access to public transit significantly reduced the demand for
student parking on college campuses and decreased traffic in
neighborhoods near schools. However, this bill includes
middle school students, who are too young to drive to school;
many high school students are too also young to drive to
school. TransForm, one of the sponsors of this bill, states
that parents of schoolchildren add to traffic congestion by
dropping off and picking up their children, and that teenagers
often skip school because it is too difficult to get to and
from school.
4)Double-referred. This bill has also been referred to the
Committee on Environmental Quality.
Related Legislation:
SB 951 (McGuire) - would have created a pilot program to provide
veterans with free access to transit services. This bill was
held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 824 (Beall) - makes a number of modifications to LCTOP. This
bill is pending hearing in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
AB 2090 (Alejo) - authorizes LCTOP funds to be appropriated to
support operation of an existing transit service if the
governing board of the requesting transit agency declares a
fiscal emergency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This bill will be also heard in this committee today.
AB 2222 (Holden) Page 5 of ?
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 72-7
Appr: 18-2
Trans: 16-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 15, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
Move LA (co-sponsor)
TransForm (co-sponsor)
Aspiranet
Amigos de los Rios
Associated Students of Santa Monica College
Association for Commuter Transportation, Southern California
Chapter
Bay Area Rapid Transit
California Federation of Teachers
California Pan Ethnic Health Network
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
California State Student Association
California State University
Cerritos College
Children's Defense Fund
College of the Canyons
Community College League of California
Gamaliel of California
Investing in Place
Kings Canyon Unified School District
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors member Mark
Ridley-Thomas
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Los Angeles Job Corps
Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
AB 2222 (Holden) Page 6 of ?
Los Angeles Unified School District Board Member Monica Garcia
Los Rios Community College District
Mike Eng, Retired Assemblyman
Mt. San Antonio College
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Orange County Transportation Authority
Pasadena Area Community College District
Pasadena City College
Peralta Community College District
Prevention Institute
Public Advocates
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
San Diego Community College District
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Santa Monica Community College
Social Action Partners
TRUST South L.A.
Union of Concerned Scientists
University of California, Los Angeles professor Donald Shoup
University of Southern California
Ventura County Transportation Commission
4 individuals
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END -