BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2332
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 2332
(Eduardo Garcia) - As Amended April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Transportation funding: complete streets
SUMMARY: Increases transportation investments in disadvantaged
communities. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes findings and declarations that low-income and
disadvantaged communities have faced historic patterns of
inequity and disinvestment from the state highway system,
including in areas of air quality, safety, and accessibility.
2)States the intent of the Legislature to put a greater focus on
sustainability and awareness for all users of the system by
directing resources to the state's most affected and
disadvantaged communities to provide economic and health
benefits to these communities.
3)Requires the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to set goals and implement several targets derived
from performance measures included in its "Strategic
Management Plan 2015-20." Specifically, the department would
be required to:
AB 2332
Page 2
a) Increase the annual number of complete street projects
it undertakes by 20% over the 2016 baseline by 2020;
b) Set a goal to reduce the number of transit, pedestrian,
and bicyclist fatalities by 10% over the 2016 baseline by
2020;
c) Set a goal to reduce by 15% the statewide per capita
vehicle miles traveled relative to 2010 levels reported by
each Caltrans district by 2020; and,
d) Set a goal to increase travel by non-automobile modes by
tripling the amount of bicycle travel, doubling the amount
of pedestrian travel, and doubling the amount of transit
travel relative to the levels measured in the "2010-12
California Household Travel Survey."
4)Defines "complete street" as a transportation facility that is
planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe
mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians,
transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists appropriate to the
context of the facility.
5)Requires the department to increase accessibility for
low-income and disadvantaged communities by increasing
multi-modal transportation proximity to employment, jobs,
housing, and recreation areas.
6)Adds projects to implement or improve complete streets to the
list of projects that must be included in the department's
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP).
7)Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to
AB 2332
Page 3
adopt targets and performance measures for the department's
State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Asset
Management Plan, no later than July 2017, including the
following areas:
a) Improving mobility, access, and safety for non-motorized
users in disadvantaged communities by requiring that 35% of
SHOPP projects be located in urban and rural disadvantaged
communities;
b) Providing "targeted and meaningful benefits" to
residents in those communities. Defines "meaningful
benefits" as walkways, bikeways, and crossing facilities
that connect to community-identified areas such as transit
stops, employment centers, schools, medical facilities,
grocery stores, and other community services and pedestrian
or bicycle traffic control devices to improve safety for
non-motorized users;
c) Prioritizing SHOPP projects identified by the community
through strong public participation in disadvantaged
communities; and,
d) Prioritizing SHOPP projects that recruit, hire, and/or
train low-income, formerly incarcerated, under-represented,
or disconnected youth and adults and other individuals with
barriers to employment, as defined in the federal
California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of
2014.
8)Redefines the Asset Management Plan to mean, in addition to a
plan that assess the health and condition of the state highway
system with which the department is able to determine the most
effective way to apply limited resources, a plan that advances
AB 2332
Page 4
meaningful benefits in disadvantaged communities.
9)Defines "disadvantaged community" for the SHOPP Asset
Management Plan as:
a) An area with a median household income less than 80% of
the statewide median household income based in the most
current census-tract level data from the "America Community
Survey;"
b) An area identified by CalEnviro Screen; or,
c) An area where at least 75% of public school students are
eligible for free or reduced priced meals under the
National School Lunch Program.
10)Defines "meaningful benefits" for the SHOPP Asset Management
Plan as transportation projects that address any of the
following:
a) Health harms suffered disproportionately by low-income
and disadvantaged communities due to co-pollutants,
including poor air quality and a lack of public health
benefits;
b) Increasing job readiness and career opportunities with
workforce development programs, local hiring, or on-the-job
training;
c) Increasing travel for non-motorized users by improving
active transportation infrastructure, such as bicycle
AB 2332
Page 5
paths, sidewalks, and other non-motorized means of travel;
and,
d) Investing in transportation that will meet an unmet need
that has been identified as a high priority by
disadvantaged community residents and groups.
11)Requires the department to hold at least one hearing in each
Caltrans district on SHOPP projects and requires the hearing
to be held at a location accessible by public transit, at
times that are convenient for disadvantaged community
residents, and provide translation services upon request.
12)Specifies that funds from the State Transportation Fund shall
be programmed with priority for safety improvements for
pedestrians, rather than safety in general.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that Caltrans has full possession and control over
the highways of the state.
2)Creates the CTC with specified powers and duties relative to
the programming of transportation capital improvement projects
and the allocations of transportation revenues.
3)Requires Caltrans to develop and submit a draft 5-year ITIP to
the CTC, and requires that it be consistent with the
Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan.
4)Requires Caltrans, in consultation with the CTC, to prepare an
AB 2332
Page 6
Asset Management Plan, consistent with state and federal law,
in phases by 2020 to be implemented with the SHOPP.
5) Defines the Asset Management Plan as a document assessing the
health and condition of the state highway system to determine
the most effective way to apply the state's limited resources.
6)Requires the CTC to adopt targets and performance measures
reflecting the state's goals and objectives and to review the
Asset Management Plan as it is developed.
7)Requires Caltrans to develop the SHOPP based on the Asset
Management Plan, to guide expenditures of federal and state
funds for major capital improvements to preserve and maintain
the state highway system.
8)Requires funds from the State Highway Account to be expended
and prioritized based on:
a) Operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the
highway system;
b) Safety improvements to reduce fatalities and injuries;
c) Transportation capital improvements that expand capacity
or reduce congestion; and,
d) Environmental enhancement and mitigation.
AB 2332
Page 7
9)Enacts the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
to provide for various job training and education programs.
10)Enacts the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32
(Núñez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006] that requires the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to the
statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020.
11)Enacts SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008,
that requires the ARB to provide each region of the state with
GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light
truck sector and requires a regional transportation plan to
include a sustainable communities strategies (SCS) to achieve
the targets for GHG emission reduction.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: The author introduced AB 2332 to remedy what he
contends are longstanding patterns of disinvestment and neglect
that have frequently left rural and urban low-income communities
and communities of color without the most basic elements of a
safe and healthy environment. He observes that these
communities lack safe infrastructure for walking and bicycling
and are often bisected by freeways and high-speed arterials.
Further, he suggests that they tend to be the first communities
to see cuts in transit service during tough economic times and
are left with crumbling, unsafe road infrastructure.
One of the sponsors of the bill, the California Pan-Ethnic
AB 2332
Page 8
Health Network, writes that AB 2332 charts a path for Caltrans
to establish an accessible process for residents that have been
most burdened by highway investments to provide input into
future project development and begin to benefit from future
investments. They continue that Caltrans has an opportunity to
be a national leader and repair poor planning decisions of the
past with transportation investments that provide meaningful
benefits in the form of mobility, safety, health, and access to
opportunity to disadvantaged communities.
Committee comments: AB 2332 tackles head-on a number of
existing paradigms in the state's traditional approach to
transportation:
1)Funding: AB 2332 sets forth an ambitious funding plan for
community-based, non-traditional transportation facilities and
programs aimed at improving the quality of life and
opportunities in disadvantaged communities. AB 2332 draws
heavily from the SHOPP to fund programs and projects
prescribed in the bill.
Unfortunately, AB 2332 comes at a time when the state's
transportation funding is arguably at an all-time low and
sinking fast. The SHOPP is currently funded at about $2.3
billion annually, far short of the $8 billion identified by
the department as needed to stave off rapid degradation of
existing infrastructure. In fact, severe underfunding of the
SHOPP is the basis for the Governor having called a Special
Session of the Legislature last year to address the $59
billion backlog of maintenance needs on the state highway
system.
The state is not alone in its mounting unfunded transportation
needs. Local governments are similarly facing a nearly $80
billion shortfall in funding for local streets and roads.
AB 2332
Page 9
And, if that were not dismal enough, the CTC recently
announced a need to unallocate $754 million in planned
projects due to reductions in the gasoline excise tax revenue.
Now is not the time to impose hefty new responsibilities to
the SHOP.
2)Bottom-up versus top-down: The great build-out of the
nation's vast interstate system resulted in what was arguably
the best, most advanced transportation network in the world at
the time. The interstate system connected virtually all of
the nation's population centers and resulted in a
then-unparalleled network of defense and trade corridors.
These advances came at the ominous expense, however, of our
cities and communities, ripped apart by swaths of concrete.
Freeways brought traffic congestion, air pollution, and blight
to urban centers and drove the flight away from urban living
to sprawling suburbia. Then, state- and federal-centric
policies trumped community concerns and communities were left
with little or no control over their own destiny. Finally,
cities and regions revolted and in 1991, the passage of the
federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) signaled the end of this approach and the beginning of
a ground-up approach to transportation planning. This
devolution continued at the state level with passage of SB 45
(Kopp), Chapter 622, Statutes of 2007, that bequeathed from
the state to regions the primary responsibilities for
transportation planning and programming.
Now, the state's comprehensive transportation planning
processes are very much driven by local and regional
governments and are done in a transparent manner with vast
public outreach and participation in all phases of development
and decision-making. Additionally, with the passage of SB
AB 2332
Page 10
375, the regions have additional responsibilities to help the
state meet its climate change goals by developing an SCS to
guide investments that will reduce GHG emissions by certain
target amounts set by the ARB. The regions, with input from
their local governments and the public, are empowered to
establish priorities and make decisions on specific strategies
and projects to achieve the goal. While these plans are
developed within general parameters sets forth at the state
level, they are built around the premise that land use
decisions should be made at the local level, where community
needs are best understood and where citizens have the best
opportunity to influence the character of their communities.
Unfortunately, AB 2332 takes us back to a state-centric
approach of defining our communities. This bill vests
Caltrans with weighty responsibilities to improve
transportation in disadvantaged communities-responsibilities
that far exceed the department's traditional purview. For
example, AB 2332 requires Caltrans to set goals and objectives
to provide "meaningful benefits" to residents in disadvantaged
communities, such as projects to connect community amenities
like transit stops, employment centers, and grocery stores.
Although this bill requires Caltrans to seek community input,
Caltrans, not the communities or even the regions, will make
the project decisions that will continue to define community
characteristics. There is nothing in our history of
transportation that suggests this will be good for
communities.
3)Motorists versus non-motorists: As advocates for AB 2332
accurately point out, the state's transportation efforts for
too long have focused almost entirely on the automobile.
Little thought, attention, or money has historically been
directed to the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, or to
enhancements that could help roadways blend within the fabric
of unique communities. Vehicle through-put was the mantra and
the goal of traffic engineering to ensure transportation
AB 2332
Page 11
facilities in no way impeded motorists' flow. We now know
just how detrimental this auto-centric approach is to
communities.
AB 2332 appropriately strives to reset the state's
transportation priorities but it swings the pendulum too far.
While automobile travel should not be the sole consideration
of our transportation planning and investments, we should not
lose sight of the fact that motor vehicles bring us our goods
and services, take us to the grocery store, and, in many
communities, allow us to pursue homes that would be
prohibitively expensive were they closer to our jobs.
Evolving trends in urban development and revitalization,
better housing stock options, expanded transit capacity, and a
focus on locally-sourced goods and services will, hopefully,
help us relax our grip on automobile usage, but it will not
and should not preclude the use and benefits of automobiles
and our transportation planning and investments should reflect
this.
The vision set forth in AB 2332-that is, walkable, livable,
healthy communities for all-is universally championed.
Unfortunately, how AB 2332 would have us get there is
fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, AB 2332 raises a number of
specific concerns that are worth noting, particularly the
disruptive impact it would have on statewide programs that
serve the entire spectrum of transportation needs, not just
those limited to bicycles and pedestrians, for example:
a) AB 2332 would fundamentally change the state's highest
priority for the use of transportation dollars form
"safety" to "safety for pedestrians." It is unfathomable
that safety of motorists or bicyclists would no longer be a
AB 2332
Page 12
priority.
b) This bill would add complete streets to the requirements
for the ITIP. The purpose of ITIP is to fund projects that
improve interregional mobility for people and goods across
the state on highway and rail corridors of strategic
importance. As such, the funds in the program do not
typically go to projects within individual cities, as they
are meant to connect different cities. As these projects
are funded, they are supposed to be designed to reflect the
department's complete streets policies, for example, by
including biking and pedestrian facilities.
AB 2332 seeks to direct more of the ITIP funds to active
transportation-like projects specifically. Given that the
ITIP is typically interregional projects and few biking
and walking facilities are designed to be interregional, it
does not seem appropriate to direct interregional funds
specifically to active transportation-like projects, except
to the extent these facilities are incorporated into
interregional projects, as they should be under the
department's complete street policy.
Furthermore, consider the current funding situation.
Funding for the ITIP averages $160 million a year,
although this figure is dropping. The Active
Transportation Program (ATP) averages about $120 million a
year. The ITIP is virtually the only source of state
funding for interregional highway and rail corridor
projects throughout the state. The ATP funds bikeways,
walkways, and safe routes to school. Redirecting ITIP
AB 2332
Page 13
funds to ATP-like projects will essentially result in
bikeways and walkways being funded at an equal or even
higher level than all of the state's interregional highway
projects. Obviously, this would not offend everybody but
it does not reflect sound, balanced transportation
priorities for the state.
c) Currently, Caltrans and the CTC are working to implement
a new Asset Management Plan as required by SB 486 (Beall),
Chapter 917, Statutes of 2014, to guide the selection of
projects for the SHOPP. Specifically, the Asset Management
Plan will inform decisions in the SHOPP for capital
improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and
rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.
Additionally, the Asset Management Plan is guided by the
pending implementation of performance measures required by
the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP 21). MAP 21 required the development of national
performance measures in numerous areas including: safety,
pavement and bridge conditions, freight, and planning.
Prioritizing the funding for the SHOPP by location rather
than asset needs and utilizing SHOPP funds for other
purposes could have a number of unintended consequences.
Specifically, it could jeopardize federal funds if the new
performance measures and targets are not met.
Additionally, it will further exacerbate the challenges the
state is facing in preserving and maximizing the existing
capacity of our streets and highways.
AB 2332
Page 14
One of the state's transportation priorities should be the
movement of goods through its trade corridors-a fundamental
role of the state highway system. Goods movement projects
are identified and prioritized through the California State
Freight Plan. The SHOPP is one of few fund sources to
provide critical repairs to the state highway system and
some of these areas will not be a priority under the
proposed location-based objectives but are, nevertheless,
vital to maintaining connectivity.
d) AB 2332 also requires the department to prioritize
projects in the SHOPP that are identified by the community
through "strong public participation in disadvantaged
communities," and to conduct at least one hearing in each
of the Caltrans districts on the SHOPP at times and
locations that are convenient for disadvantaged
communities. The concept of public hearings in each
district to review SHOPP projects is a good one and
consistent with the current process regions undertake to
develop a regional transportation plan. However, focusing
these meetings around only disadvantaged communities and
requiring statewide project funding decisions to be made by
only specific communities undermines the benefit of input
from all of the public and will leave many Californians'
out of the process.
Further, AB 2332 prioritizes projects in the SHOPP by
specific hiring programs and preference. It is unclear how
this would be implemented or whether it would conflict with
existing department labor and contracting policies, or
state civil service rules. Additionally, it is difficult
to understand how the department could prioritize projects
in the SHOPP with the required labor provisions prior to an
AB 2332
Page 15
allocation of funds so that a contract could be developed
to move forward on the project.
Related bills: ABX1 23 (Garcia) requires the CTC to establish a
process to prioritize projects that provide meaningful benefits
to the mobility and safety needs of disadvantaged community
residents in the STIP and the SHOPP. Also appropriates $125
million from the state highway account to the Active
Transportation Program. ABX1 23 is pending in the First
Extraordinary Session.
Previous legislation: SB 486 (Beall), Chapter 917, Statutes of
2014, required Caltrans, in consultation with the CTC to develop
an Asset Management Plan to guide the selection of projects for
the SHOPP.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (Sponsor)
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (Sponsor)
PolicyLink (Sponsor)
Advancement Project
AB 2332
Page 16
Alliance for a Healthy Orange County
American Lung Association in California
Amigos de los Rios
Bike East Bay
Bike San Gabriel Valley
Bike Santa Cruz County
Bike SLO County
Breathe California
California Bicycle Coalition
California League of Conservation Voters
California ReLeaf
California Walks
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
AB 2332
Page 17
Center for Climate Change and Health
Chico Velo
Climate Resolve
Coalition for Clean Air
Comite Civico del Valle
Gamaliel of California
Having Our Say Coalition
Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Livable Communities, Inc.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Marin County Bike Coalition
Move LA
AB 2332
Page 18
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
PEDal, Advocacy for Pedestrians and People Who Pedal
PolicyLink
Public Advocates, Inc.
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
The Environmental Council of Sacramento
Trust for Public Land
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
AB 2332
Page 19
Orange County Transportation Authority
Rural County Representatives of California (oppose unless
amended)
Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson and Melissa White / TRANS. /
(916) 319-2093