BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2382
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2382 (Gordon)
As Amended May 15, 2012
Majority vote
TRANSPORTATION 10-1 APPROPRIATIONS 15-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jeffries, Achadjian, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Blumenfield, Bonilla, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Buchanan, Eng, Carter, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Galgiani, Miller, | |Davis, Gatto, Hall, Hill, |
| |Portantino | |Lara, Mitchell, Nielsen, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby |Nays:|Donnelly, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to establish an Innovation District Demonstration
Project (demonstration project) in partnership with the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires Caltrans, by July 1, 2014, to establish the
demonstration project in partnership with VTA.
2)Requires the demonstration project to be designed to:
a) Operate under a new and innovative business model for
delivering transportation projects and services in Santa
Clara County in a more responsive, cost-effective, and
efficient manner; and,
b) Serve as a mechanism for trying out new approaches to
project delivery, local assistance, and transportation
operations through streamlined processes, improved
management techniques, and advanced technologies with the
goal of expediting project delivery and increasing the
efficiency of Caltrans.
3)Requires Caltrans and VTA jointly to conduct an evaluation of
the demonstration project to assess the project's
AB 2382
Page 2
effectiveness and provide recommendations as to whether the
project should be continued; requires the report to be
submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2018.
EXISTING LAW establishes:
1)Caltrans within the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency and grants it broad powers as the owner and operator of
all state highways.
2)VTA as congestion management agency and vests it with
responsibilities for countywide transportation planning,
including congestion management and design and construction of
specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement
projects.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Assembly Appropriations Committee,
absorbable costs to conduct the demonstration project, with the
potential for ongoing savings to the extent the demonstration
project leads to streamlining project delivery in this and other
transportation agencies.
COMMENTS : In 1984, voters in Santa Clara County approved the
first .5-cent sales tax measure in California to fund
transportation improvements. Currently, VTA and the Santa Clara
Board of Directors work in partnership to deliver highway and
transit projects financed largely by the county's sales tax
measure. VTA is within the nine-county jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the designated
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the San Francisco
Bay Area.
The author has introduced this bill at VTA's request to provide
an opportunity to identify ways to improve communication between
Caltrans and local agency staff (namely VTA), and to improve
Caltrans' organizational flexibility. VTA's interest in
sponsoring this bill is borne out of its frustration in working
with Caltrans. VTA cites chronic delays from Caltrans in
getting project reviews and approvals, inefficiencies, stifling
risk aversion, and ineffective, decentralized decision-making as
examples of its specific frustrations with Caltrans.
According to the author, as California's transportation needs
continue to outpace available revenues, counties such as Santa
AB 2382
Page 3
Clara, that have taxed themselves to pay for transportation
improvements, will need to develop improved partnerships with
Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
The author believes that the demonstration project prescribed by
this bill will help expedite project delivery and generate ideas
for increasing the efficiency of the department, which could
result in long-term savings to the state.
Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California's highway
and freeway lanes, provides intercity rail services, permits
more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital
heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans has six
primary programs: Aeronautics, Highway Transportation, Mass
Transportation, Transportation Planning, Administration and the
Equipment Service Center. The department's over 20,000
employees serve the transportation needs of more than 30 million
residents.
Frustration between Caltrans and regional and local
transportation agencies is not new or unique to VTA and this
bill is not the first introduced in the Legislature to try to
deal with these frustrations. For example, in 1992, SCR 72
(Bergeson), Res. Chapter 115, directed the Legislative Analyst
to contract with a private consulting firm to conduct a
management audit of Caltrans and its organizational structure
and practices and to make recommendations to the Governor and
the Legislature.
The audit was to include, at a minimum, the following:
1)The department's mission as an agency of state government and
of the services it renders for the benefit of and on behalf of
the people of California.
2)How the department fits into the structure of state
government, including its relationship with the Governor and
other departments.
3)The department's organizational structure, including the
various divisions and transportation districts.
4)Project development work performed by various units and
sections of the department, how these sections coordinate
their work, their decision making processes, and causes of
AB 2382
Page 4
delay within these processes.
5)The state's changing transportation needs and funding sources
and how they impact the programming and delivery of
transportation projects and services.
6)Constraints created by existing federal and state laws, rules,
and regulations governing the transportation program and the
department's operations.
7)Effectiveness of the department's current organizational
structure, including a review of the existing districts and
divisions.
8)Appropriate performance measures for project delivery through
construction.
9)Methods and efficiency of the department's engineering,
technical review, policies and procedures, electronic data
processing, and quality control.
10)The ability of the department to meet the needs of its
customers and partners.
The consulting firm was required to develop an organizational
framework within the state government to effectively and
efficiently discharge the duties currently assigned to the
department. The recommendations had to be based on the "state
of the art" organizational structures without regard to the
existing organizational arrangement and had to address, at a
minimum, all of the following:
1)Should there be a new transportation agency reporting directly
to the Governor to direct and coordinate all
transportation-related activities of state government?
2)Is the department too large and diverse to manage effectively
and, if so, what would be an appropriate number of departments
to handle the work effectively?
3)Within each department, what is the appropriate number of
units, such as divisions and sections?
4)Within each department, what is the appropriate number of
AB 2382
Page 5
regional offices or districts?
5)What is the effectiveness of the project development process
within current legal constraints?
Stanford Research International (SRI) was hired as the
consultant to perform the audit and its comprehensive report was
published and submitted to the Legislature in February of 1994.
Many of the specific recommendations made by SRI were instituted
and led to major reforms within the department.
The SRI audit is now almost 20 years old. Since it was
published, there have been significant changes in California's
transportation landscape, for example:
1)Federal and state gas taxes, which at one time supported most
safety, maintenance, rehabilitation, and capacity
improvements, are now insufficient even to adequately fund
Caltrans' increasing maintenance and rehabilitation needs.
2)Essentially all monies for transportation capital improvements
now come either from bonds or from self-help counties sales
tax revenues and virtually none come from gas tax revenues.
3)Significant reforms in transportation programming, enacted in
1997 (SB 45 (Kopp), Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997) have
devolved responsibility for major planning and allocations for
improvements on the state highway system in urban areas to
MPOs. SB 45 directed 75% of funds available for improvement
projects to the regions and 25% to Caltrans (for interregional
and rural purposes primarily).
These changes have undoubtedly contributed to throwing the
roles, responsibilities, and relationships between Caltrans and
regional and local transportation agencies off plumb.
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0003551
AB 2382
Page 6