BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 2250
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  daly
                                                         VERSION: 4/24/14
          Analysis by:  Eric Thronson                    FISCAL:  yes
          Hearing date:  June 24, 2014



          SUBJECT:

          Toll revenue expenditures

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill requires the California Department of Transportation  
          (Caltrans) to ensure that the toll revenue generated by a  
          managed lane on the state highway system is available for  
          expenditure in the corridor containing that managed lane.

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law authorizes the San Diego Association of  
          Governments, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority,  
          and the Alameda County Transportation Commission to construct  
          high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT lanes).  An agency operating a  
          HOT lane essentially sells excess capacity in under-subscribed  
          high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to single-occupant vehicle  
          drivers by charging a toll.    

          HOT lanes typically employ a pricing method known as value  
          pricing or congestion pricing.  Under this scheme, the amount of  
          the toll varies in accordance with the level of congestion in  
          that particular lane such that as congestion increases so too  
          will the toll amount.  As the price to use the lane goes up,  
          fewer people presumably will choose to use it, thereby reducing  
          demand for the facility and maintaining free-flow travel  
          conditions.  With this mechanism, an agency can attempt to  
          ensure that operation of the toll facility does not undermine  
          the intended benefits of promoting carpooling with access to the  
          faster HOV lane.

          Until 2012, existing law authorized regional transportation  
          agencies, in cooperation with Caltrans, to apply to the  
          California Transportation Commission (CTC) to develop and  
          operate HOT lanes.  Before this authority expired, CTC approved  
          HOT lane facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles  




          AB 2250 (DALY)                                         Page 2

                                                                       


          County, and Riverside County.  

           This bill : 

           Requires Caltrans to ensure that the toll revenue generated by  
            a managed lane on the state highway system is available for  
            expenditure in the corridor containing that managed lane.
          
           Defines a managed lane as any of the following:

                 An HOV lane
                 A HOT lane
                 An express toll lane, which is a dedicated lane that  
               requires all vehicles to pay a toll, but may provide for a  
               discounted toll for HOVs

          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose  .  Last year, Governor Brown directed the California  
            State Transportation Agency to convene a workgroup of  
            stakeholders to explore, among other things, long-term  
            transportation funding options to help address the state's  
            growing transportation needs.  From that work, the  
            Transportation Agency concluded that one option to consider  
            includes expanding the use of pricing and express lanes to  
            better manage congestion and generate revenues for  
            preservation of the current system.  According to the author,  
            some stakeholders have concerns that the state may move toward  
            using locally generated toll revenues to fund highway  
            maintenance and preservation on other parts of the state  
            highway system outside the managed lane corridor.  The author  
            intends, with this bill, to ensure that locally operated toll  
            lane revenues can only be spent within the corridor in which  
            they are generated.

            Recent actions lend some validity to the stakeholder concerns  
            this bill attempts to address.  In opposition to SB 1298  
            (Hernandez), a HOT lane-related bill this committee heard in  
            April, the Professional Engineers in California Government  
            (PECG) requested that bill be amended to provide a reasonable  
            amount of HOT lane revenue to the state for maintenance and  
            operations of the state highway system.  The Transportation  
            Agency has indicated that this may be a potential opportunity  
            to help fund the state's transportation needs.  In some ways  
            it seems unfair, and counterproductive, to ask a local entity  
            to increase taxes or fees on its own constituents only to  




          AB 2250 (DALY)                                         Page 3

                                                                       


            redistribute the funds to be spent elsewhere in the state.   
            This bill attempts to address this concern.  
          
           2.Why not say what you mean  ?  Based on the author's intent, it  
            is not clear that this bill as currently written accomplishes  
            his aims.  In order to be perfectly clear, the committee may  
            wish to amend the bill to state specifically that any toll  
            revenues generated from a locally-administered managed lane  
            may only be expended within the managed lane's corridor.

          Assembly Votes:

               Floor:    78-0
               Appr: 17-0
               Trans:    15-0

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on  
          Wednesday,                                             June 18,  
          2014.)

               SUPPORT:  California Asphalt Pavement Association
                         Self-Help Counties Coalition

               OPPOSED:  None received.