BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2485
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 2485 (Hueso) - As Amended: March 20, 2012
SUBJECT : California Department of Transportation: Roadside
rest areas
SUMMARY : Authorizes the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to enter into agreements for the operation of
roadside rest areas by private entities, as prescribed.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes Caltrans to enter into agreements for the operation
of safety roadside rest areas by private entities in
conjunction with the development of a retail establishment, to
the extent such development is consistent with federal law and
other provisions of existing state law related to roadside
rest areas.
2)Authorizes Caltrans to seek modifications to existing real
estate contracts if doing so would be cost effective for the
state.
3)Requires agreements to provide for continued Caltrans
ownership of any related property but allows for a lease of
the property to the private entity as well as payment to the
state of a fixed percentage of all gross sales generated
either through direct or online sales.
4)Stipulates that all maintenance of the rest area is to be the
responsibility of the private entity.
5)Requires that the private entity be required to ensure access
for a daily minimum 18 hours to the rest area and also to
provide restrooms, security, and limited vehicle parking.
6)Requires the retail establishment to be consistent with the
state-defined footprint and height standards and to comply
with all American with Disabilities Act standards and meet or
exceed California's green building standards.
7)Requires Caltrans to seek any federal waivers that might be
necessary to implement these provisions.
AB 2485
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes Caltrans to construct, operate, and maintain a
maximum of six new safety roadside rest area units as joint
economic development demonstration projects, under certain
conditions, including:
a) Demonstration projects must not be prohibited by federal
law or regulation;
b) Contracts for the demonstration projects must be awarded
on the basis of competitive bidding; and,
c) Law enforcement responsibilities must be the same as
they are elsewhere on the State Highway System.
2)Requires Caltrans to hold, or at least afford the opportunity
for, public hearings for each proposed demonstration project
so that local community members that may be affected by the
economic development and other interested parties may comment
on the project.
3)Prohibits, under federal law, states from permitting
automotive service stations or other commercial establishments
that serve motorists to be constructed or located in the
rights of way of the Interstate Highway System (Interstate).
4)Permits Caltrans to authorize the placement of vending
machines in safety rest areas so long as preference is given
to vendors that operate under the Business Enterprise Program
for the Blind; similar provisions exist under federal law as
well.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. Any payments received by the Caltrans
would be required to be deposited into the State Highway
Account.
COMMENTS : Commercialization of rest areas on the Interstate has
been prohibited since 1956 when the federal legislation that
authorized the Interstate was enacted. (In fact, as recent as
last month, the United State Senate considered legislation to
repeal the prohibition on commercial activities in rest areas
and resoundingly rejected it on a vote of 86-12.) Limited
exceptions to this prohibition are granted to Interstates built
AB 2485
Page 3
prior to 1960 and to vending activities, priority for which is
granted by federal and state law to blind vendors.
Perhaps the closest Congress has come to actually allowing
commercial activity along the Interstate is the federal
"Interstate Oasis" program, enacted in 2005. That program
authorizes states to designate and provide signing to facilities
near, but not within, the Interstate right of way. To be
included in the program, the facilities have to offer products
and services to the public, 24-hours access to restrooms, and
parking for automobiles and heavy trucks. States are empowered
to designate an "Interstate Oasis" if the facility meets all the
following criteria:
1)Is located within 3 miles of an interchange;
2)Is safely and conveniently accessible, as determined by an
engineering study;
3)Can physically accommodate all vehicles, including heavy
trucks safely;
4)Provides a public telephone, food (including vending, snacks,
fast food, and/or full service) and fuel, oil, and water for
vehicles;
5)Provides restrooms available to the public at all times (24
hours per day, 365 days per year) and drinking water at no
charge or obligation.
To date, the federal Interstate Oasis program has not had much
success--there are no designated facilities in any state.
Caltrans has had an equal lack of success in its efforts to
privatize rest stops: first, in obtaining federal authority to
permit commercial activities in the rest areas; and, second, to
solicit viable joint development proposals even for its
non-Interstate freeways. State law enacted in 1984, (Chapter
1139), authorized a joint economic development demonstration
program and provided for up to 6 new road roadside rests. To
date, however, no projects have been built under this authority,
due in large part to: 1) the federal prohibition against
commercial activities on the Interstate; and, 2) the fact that
heavily traveled areas outside of the Interstate tend to already
have commercial developments (e.g., food, gas, and lodging) that
AB 2485
Page 4
cater to motorists. Less traveled areas that remain undeveloped
would probably not generate enough business to sustain
commercial activities within or outside of the right of way.
The author has introduced AB 2485 to "expand business, create
jobs, save the state money due to lower maintenance costs, and
generate additional revenue to fund other transportation
projects." The author believes it is critical that
under-utilized assets (such as rest areas) of the state be
targeted for opportunities to maximize their benefits. This
bill's sponsor, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce,
estimates that the public-private partnerships envisioned in
this bill have the potential to bring in $3 million annually in
lease revenue to the State Highway Account and $7.5 million
annually in new sales tax revenue. Additionally, the author
believes the bill could save the state as much as $15 million
annually in deferred maintenance costs. Evidence from other
states--which have Interstates that were built prior to 1960 and
are, therefore, authorized to operate commercialized rest
areas-supports these estimates, at least in concept. For
example, rest stops in Delaware, financed entirely with private
funds, reportedly generate $1.6 million annually for the state.
The author argues that, whatever financial benefits are derived
from the commercialization of rest areas, they are second to the
benefits to be realized from having clean, improved facilities
for motorist safety.
Caltrans currently operates 87 roadside rests. However, due to
funding limitations, Caltrans has not constructed any new rest
areas since 1984 although it has identified a need for as many
as 75 new rest areas statewide.
Opponents to this bill assert that the long-standing ban on
commercial activities within the Interstate right of way has
been successful in encouraging commercial developments at the
exits along the Interstates. They cite as evidence of this
success statistics indicating that California has 1,378 gas
stations, over 8,000 highway-oriented food services locations,
90 truck services sites, 260 fuel stops, and 61 truck stops
located within a quarter-mile of the Interstate. The opponents
argue that allowing rest areas commercialization will not create
new demand for food and fuel but simply siphon business away
from these exit-businesses.
AB 2485
Page 5
Committee comments:
1)California's most heavily traveled highways are its Interstate
highways, upon which federal law prohibits commercial
activities. It is highly unlikely that the federal government
will waive its long-standing ban on commercial activities
within Interstate rights of way, making it doubtful that this
bill could be implemented.
2)State Route 99, which runs north to south through the Central
Valley, would be a prime location for public-private
partnership developments within the rights of way were it not
for the commercial businesses that have already been developed
near the freeway exists. These businesses would likely be
harmed by joint development within the State Route 99 rights
of way.
3)Any developments that may be authorized within the rights of
way should be required to provide a minimum level of services,
including:
a) Access to rest rooms and to drinking water 24 hours per
day, 365 days per year at no charge or obligation to
motorists; and,
b) Parking facilities for large trucks.
Proposed amendments:
The author intends to take amendments in committee to do the
following:
1)Ensure that the public will have access to the restroom
facilities, drinking water, and parking facilities (including
for large trucks) 24 hours per day, 365 days per week.
2)Strike provisions that authorize Caltrans to seek
modifications to existing real estate contracts if doing so
would be cost effective for the state. These provisions were
deemed unnecessary. The specific amendment is as follows:
On page 2, beginning at line 7, strike "To the extent that the
department has existing real estate contracts with private
parties that could be modified consistent with the
AB 2485
Page 6
requirements of this section, the department may seek
modifications to those contracts if the department determines
that to do so is cost effective for the state."
Previous legislation:
AB 1566 (Niello) of 2007 would have required Caltrans and the
California Transportation Commission to identify and prioritize
one or more candidate projects for a joint economic development
rest area. That bill died without a hearing.
SB 468 (Campbell) in 2005 would expanded from 6 to 15 the number
of roadside rest areas that Caltrans would have been allowed to
construct, maintain and operate as joint public-private economic
developments. That bill failed on the Senate floor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Council of Engineering Companies
California Chamber of Commerce
Opposition
California Council of the Blind
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
NATSO
Partnership to Save Highway Communities
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093