BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 464
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 464 (Olsen) - As Introduced: February 15, 2011
SUBJECT : State Highway Route 59
SUMMARY : Adds 15 miles of County Road J-59 in Stanislaus and
Tuolumne Counties to the state highway system.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Grants the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
broad powers to acquire, construct, and control all state
highways.
2)Identifies the specific routes and route segments that
together comprise the state highway system.
3)States legislative intent that the routes of the state highway
system:
a) Serve the state's heavily traveled rural and urban
corridors;
b) Connect the communities and regions of the state;
and,
c) Serve the state's economy by connecting centers of
commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and
recreation.
1)Explicitly provides that state highways will be maintained,
constructed, and improved from moneys in the State Highway
Account.
2)Explicitly provides that Caltrans is not required to maintain
any route, or portion of a route, added after January 1, 1947,
until the route has been laid out and constructed as a state
highway.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown costs to Caltrans to operate and
maintain the roadway and to assume tort liability for this
segment.
AB 464
Page 2
COMMENTS : County Route J-59, from State Route 132 to the
junction of State Routes 108 and 120, is a 15-mile stretch of
road running roughly parallel to the Sierras and leading to
tourist destinations such as Sonora, Stanislaus National Forest,
and Mono and Calaveras Counties.
According to the author, County Road J-59 is predominantly used
as an interregional connector road for commercial transportation
and, therefore, it is appropriate that the road become a state
highway. Furthermore, the author asserts that transferring the
road to Caltrans while the road is in excellent condition
(having just undergone a $4 million overlay project last year)
will ensure that there is no financial burden to the state.
Caltrans agrees that the route serves an interregional function
and could appropriately be a state highway route. However,
Caltrans asserts that, despite the recent overlay project
completed by the counties, the roadway is not up to state
highway standards. For example:
1)Much of the roadway has no shoulders, or has less than
two-foot wide shoulders, with steep drop-offs;
2)Inadequate shoulders create inadequate recovery zones (i.e.,
the area alongside the roadway wherein errant drivers have
room to safely correct the vehicle);
3)The road has other non-standard feature, such as slopes,
drains, signs, guard rails, and horizontal curves and there
are three bridge structures that may or may not be adequate
for a state highway; and,
4)Adding the segment to the state highway system would leave a
gap in State Route 59 (from Snelling to Route 132) and
therefore would not provide adequate continuity and
connectivity to other state highway segments.
In addition to the need to correct these deficiencies, Caltrans
points out that, if it were to assume responsibility for the
route, it would have to incur ongoing costs associated with
maintenance and tort liability. All in all, costs to Caltrans
for bringing this route into the state highway system would
amount to millions of dollars.
AB 464
Page 3
Sponsors of this bill acknowledge that at least some of the
issues raised by Caltrans regarding the route's highway design
deficiencies are indeed accurate. However, the counties point
out that some of these issues have already been resolved by
improvements to the highway that Caltrans was apparently not
aware of. Recent discussions regarding the highway and this
bill have led to a commitment by Caltrans and the counties to
meet and develop a better understanding of one another's
concerns for the condition of the highway relative to state
highway design standards.
Aside from design deficiencies, however, Caltrans asserts that,
at a time when it maintenance and rehabilitation needs for the
state highway system exceed available funds to pay for them by
billions of dollars, assuming another highway segment into the
state highway system is not prudent. The sponsors, on the other
hand, point out that they have been unfairly bearing the costs
for this highway, which should have rightfully been the state's
responsibility to bear, right along.
Committee concerns: The author's intent in adding this segment
to the state highway system is to have Caltrans assume
ownership, control, and responsibility for the route. However,
other provisions of law not addressed in this bill specifically
relieve Caltrans of having to assume these responsibilities
until the route is brought up to state highway standards.
Consequently, if this bill were to pass and the route were to be
included in the state highway system (absent additional
improvements to bring it up to standards), Caltrans would still
not be required to assume costs for the highway and this bill
would have no practical effect.
Amending this bill to specifically require Caltrans to assume
responsibility for this highway segment notwithstanding the
other provisions would technically resolve this conflict.
The amendment would not, however, resolve perhaps the greater
concern-that it, despite the merits of this bill, it would
likely require Caltrans to incur costs amounting to millions of
dollars at time when its funding is already woefully inadequate
to meet its existing needs.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 464
Page 4
Tuolumne County Transportation Council
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
Stanislaus County
Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093