BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 254 Hearing Date: 4/28/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Allen |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/22/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Eric Thronson |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Streamlining highway relinquishments
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation
Commission to relinquish portions of the state highway system to
a county or city without legislative action.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law identifies the California state highway system
(SHS) through a description of segments of the state's regional
and interregional roads that are owned and operated by the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state
highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively authorized
to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or maintain. Existing
law specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for the
routes of the state highway system to connect the communities
and regions of the state and that they serve the state's economy
by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture,
mineral wealth, and recreation.
Further, existing law provides a two-step process for the state
to expand or delete a section of the state highway system that
begins with the Legislature amending existing law and then the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) making findings that
it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a
specified portion of roadway from the system. This is known as
the state highway relinquishment process.
This bill:
SB 254 (Allen) Page 2 of ?
1)Authorizes CTC, absent legislative action, to relinquish to a
county or city a portion of the SHS within that county or
city, as long as it is not part of the interregional road
system as defined in existing law.
2)Restricts CTC from relinquishing any portion of the SHS until
Caltrans has entered into an agreement with the recipient of
the highway segment and has placed the highway in a state of
good repair.
3)Requires Caltrans, by April 1, 2016, and every two years
thereafter, to report to CTC on which highway segments
primarily serve regional travel versus facilitating
interregional movement of people and goods. From this report
Caltrans must identify which routes and segments are the best
candidates for future relinquishment. CTC must develop
guidelines for this report in consultation with Caltrans.
4)Requires CTC to compile a list of relinquished highway routes
and segments in the previous 12 months and include this
information in its annual report to the Legislature.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, there appear to be a number
of state highways defined in existing law that no longer serve
the purpose of a typical highway. They may be urban routes
through heavily populated areas, or main streets for
burgeoning suburbs. It doesn't make sense for the state to
bear the cost of maintaining these roads, nor is it
practicable for local governments to have to work through the
state bureaucracy to make important changes like adding
parking or turning a thoroughfare into a "complete street."
This bill makes it easier for relinquishments to take place,
but only when both the state and the local government agree
that it is in everyone's best interest.
2)Why streamline relinquishments? Each session, the Legislature
passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC
to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local
jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally
preceded by a negotiation of terms and conditions between the
local jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been
established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and
SB 254 (Allen) Page 3 of ?
verifies its approval via a resolution.
In January of this year, the administration proposed budget
trailer bill language intending to streamline the state's
relinquishment process. According to the governor's budget
summary, a number of routes are still part of the SHS that
serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed
trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state
process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide
system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This
could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state
benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these
segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will
increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better
use of valuable real estate to support transit-oriented
development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the
state's long-term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of
the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining
the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a
proposal should be considered through the policy bill process
and not as an add-on to the state's annual budget. This bill
essentially mirrors the administration's proposal in a policy
bill for just this purpose.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 22, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
SB 254 (Allen) Page 4 of ?