BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      SB 64


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          64 (Liu)


          As Amended  June 24, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  36-2


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Transportation  |16-0 |Frazier, Achadjian,   |                    |
          |                |     |Baker, Bloom, Campos, |                    |
          |                |     |Chu, Daly, Dodd,      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Gomez, Kim, Linder,   |                    |
          |                |     |Medina, Melendez,     |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, O'Donnell   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonta,         |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Eggman,     |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, |                    |








                                                                      SB 64


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Directs the California Transportation Commission (CTC)  
          to review recommendations in the California Transportation Plan  
          (CTP) developed by the California Department of Transportation  
          (Caltrans) and to make its own specific recommendations for  
          transportation system improvements to the Legislature and the  
          Governor; also directs the CTC to include in its annual report  
          to the Legislature specific, action-oriented and pragmatic  
          recommendations for legislation to improve the transportation  
          system.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, minor costs (up to $100,000) every five years for the  
          CTC to review the CTP and report its recommendations.  The CTC's  
          costs to incorporate recommendations for legislation into its  
          annual report should be minor and absorbable. 


          Notwithstanding the above costs associated solely with this  
          bill, in the 2015-16 Budget Act, the CTC received funding for a  
          two-year limited-term Supervising Transportation Planner to  
          fulfill its responsibilities under SB 486 (DeSaulnier), Chapter  
          917, Statutes of 2014.  The CTC indicates that, to fulfill the  
          requirements of both this bill and SB 486, it would seek to  
          convert this position to permanent status.


          COMMENTS:  SB 391 (Liu), Chapter 585, Statutes of 2009, directed  
          Caltrans to develop the CTP, a long-range, statewide  
          transportation plan intended to identify the integrated  
          multi-modal transportation system needed to move people and  
          freight and to achieve the state's greenhouse gas emission  
          reduction goals.  SB 391 requires the CTP to be updated every  








                                                                      SB 64


                                                                    Page  3





          five years.  


          Last session, the Legislature passed SB 486 (DeSaulnier),  
          Chapter 917, Statutes of 2014, to link the CTP with Caltrans'  
          other planning and programming processes.  The linear process  
          set forth in SB 486 is meant to ensure that only those  
          transportation projects that support the state's broad policy  
          objectives and strategies, as set forth in the CTP, are planned,  
          environmentally reviewed, designed, and funded.  Consequently,  
          the significance of the CTP should not be underestimated because  
          it forms the basis for future investment decisions that will  
          affect California's transportation system.  


          The next iteration of the updated CTP is due to be completed by  
          December 31, 2015.  Caltrans is circulating a draft version of  
          the plan for comment and the draft has created quite a stir  
          within the transportation community.  For example, CTC, in its  
          comments to Caltrans about the draft, asserts that "it is  
          evident that Caltrans is planning for significant actions that  
          will fundamentally alter how Californians will utilize our  
          transportation system."  CTC criticizes several aspects of the  
          draft CTP, for example:


          1)CTC suggests the CTP inappropriately lacks balance between  
            California's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and the  
            state's economic and mobility goals.  


          2)CTC argues that road capacity projects, in addition to other  
            project types, "must be strategically planned to address  
            California's growing population and promote a robust economy."  
             CTC takes umbrage with statements made in the CTP such as the  
            direction to "avoid projects that add road capacity" and "any  
            transportation projects on the State Highway System or on  
            local streets that are capacity increasing should not be  
            supported for funding." 








                                                                      SB 64


                                                                    Page  4







          Others similarly voiced concerns regarding the draft CTP.  For  
          example, the California Association of Councils of Government  
          (CalCOG) contends that the CTP makes assumptions about things  
          like road pricing, electric vehicle market penetration, and more  
          that would never survive the fiscal-constraint and environmental  
          review restrictions that apply to regional transportation plans  
          and sustainable communities strategies.  CalCOG suggests that,  
          "while the CTP may be a worthy vision - it does not have to  
          address the hard questions of how the assumptions and strategies  
          will materialize."


          The author introduced this bill as a follow-up to her SB 391 of  
          2009 with the intent to solicit specific, focused  
          recommendations for the Governor and the Legislature from CTC in  
          response to each update of the plan.  


          Given the central role that the CTP now plays in the state's  
          transportation planning and project selection processes and  
          given the controversy surrounding current draft CTP, this bill  
          makes good sense and is particularly timely.  Strategies to  
          provide a transportation system that can support and encourage a  
          robust economy and meet the state's greenhouse gas emission  
          reduction goals will undoubtedly be aggressive and will require  
          difficult policy trade-offs.  CTC's specific recommendations, as  
          required by this bill, will assist the Governor and the  
          Legislature to better understand the implications of these  
          trade-offs. 


          Furthermore, because transportation is a complex, often very  
          technical subject matter, the Legislature leans on the CTC for  
          advice and counsel to guide transportation policies and to  
          provide oversight.  This bill directs the CTC, in addition to  
          recommendations regarding the CTP, to provide to the Legislature  
          specific, action-oriented recommendations in the CTC's annual  








                                                                      SB 64


                                                                    Page  5





          report to the Legislature.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093  FN:  
          0001614