BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 486
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 486 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: June 9, 2014
SENATE VOTE : Not applicable
SUBJECT : California Department of Transportation: planning and
programming
SUMMARY : Modifies processes for developing and adopting the
California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') long-range
transportation planning and programming documents.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding:
a) A recent external assessment of Caltrans that called for
reforms to update the department's mission, strengthen its
performance, and align its work with broad state policy
goals; and,
b) The need to develop a long-term, inclusive planning
process for Caltrans, similar to the already established
regional transportation planning process.
2)Directs the California Transportation Commission (CTC), by
January 31, 2015, and every four years thereafter, to develop
and adopt specific goals for Caltrans to achieve in each of
the following priorities:
a) Operation of effective transportation systems for moving
people and goods between regions and through the state
using, for example, traffic demand strategies and
technologies that do not require additional capacity;
b) Maintenance of the state's highway system in a state of
good repair; and,
c) Greenhouse gas emission reductions to the maximum extent
possible in all of Caltrans' activities.
3)Directs CTC to develop performance measures for each of the
adopted goals and to include an evaluation of Caltrans'
SB 486
Page 2
performance in the commission's annual report.
4)Directs Caltrans, on December 15, 2015, and every five years
thereafter, to adopt and submit to CTC an interregional
transportation strategic plan (ITSP) directed at achieving a
high-functioning and balanced interregional transportation
system; requires the plan to reflect the following priorities,
listed in order of importance:
a) Maintaining the state's existing transportation system
in a state of good repair;
b) Addressing the state's responsibility to provide
efficient goods movement;
c) Improving system operations through traffic demand
strategies and technology;
d) Improving the livability of and access to the state's
transportation system for all users, where appropriate;
e) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32
(Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006); and,
f) Assisting regions with traffic congestion reduction when
appropriate.
5)Requires the ITSP to be consistent with the California
Transportation Plan (CTP).
6)Directs CTC to establish guidelines for Caltrans to follow in
developing the interregional transportation improvement
program (ITIP); requires projects in the ITIP to be consistent
with the ITSP.
7)Requires CTC to hold two public hearings prior to adopting the
ITIP.
8)Requires CTC to develop guidelines for Caltrans to follow in
developing the State Highway Operation and Protection Program
(SHOPP).
9)Authorizes CTC to decline to adopt the SHOPP if it determines
that the program is not sufficiently consistent with the
SB 486
Page 3
guidelines developed and adopted by the commission.
10)Requires CTC to include in its annual report a discussion and
analyses of Caltrans' support costs and expenditures.
11)Deletes obsolete provisions related to CTC's annual report.
12)Deletes obsolete provisions related to the conversion of data
related to the state highway system from paper storage to
electronic storage.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Vests CTC with responsibility to advise and assist the
Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency
(CalSTA) and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating
state policies and plans for California's transportation
programs.
2)Requires Caltrans to update the CTP by December 31, 2015, and
every 5 years thereafter. The CTP is required to address how
the state will achieve maximum feasible emissions reductions
and to identify the statewide integrated multimodal
transportation system needed to achieve these results.
Caltrans is required to submit a draft report to CTC and the
Legislature and specifically requires Caltrans to consult with
and coordinate its planning activities with specified entities
and to provide an opportunity for review and comment. The CTP
is required to be consistent with statements of legislative
intent.
3)Directs Caltrans to develop STIP guidelines and authorizes CTC
to amend the guidelines after conducting at least one public
hearing.
4)Sets forth the process by which CTC adopts the STIP, a
biennial five-year program of projects. Only projects that
are first included in a regional transportation improvement
program submitted by a regional transportation agency or in
the ITIP submitted by Caltrans may be included in the STIP.
STIP funds are available only for capital improvements, not
for operating or maintenance costs.
5)Requires Caltrans, by December 15 of each odd-numbered year,
to submit to CTC a five-year ITIP consisting of project to:
SB 486
Page 4
i) Improve state highways;
ii) Improve the intercity passenger rail system; and,
iii) Improve the interregional movement of people,
vehicles, and goods.
6)Directs Caltrans to develop the SHOPP, a program of major
capital projects necessary to preserve and protect the state
highway system. Projects in the SHOPP are limited to those
that do not add new capacity to the system.
7)Authorizes CTC to review the SHOPP relative to its overall
adequacy, level of funding needed to implement the program,
and the impact of those expenditures on the STIP.
8)Requires CTC to adopt and submit to the Legislature, by
December 15 of each year, an annual report with specific
elements, including, for the years 2001 to 2008:
a) A summary and discussion of short-term loans and
transfers authorized as part of the now-obsolete Traffic
Congestion Relief Act of 2000;
b) A summary and discussion on the cash-flow and project
delivery impact of those loans and transfers; and,
c) A summary of any guidance provided to the department
relative to those loans and transfers.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS : The genesis of SB 486 is, at least in part, a
recently released report issued by the State Smart
Transportation Initiative (SSTI). SSTI was commissioned CalSTA
to assess Caltrans' performance and to make recommendations for
improvements.
In short, the SSTI report found that Caltrans is "significantly
out of step" with best practices in the transportation field and
with many of the state's policy expectations, such as those
related to greenhouse gas emission reductions. To support its
conclusion that Caltrans needs modernizing, the SSTI report
cites numerous areas in which Caltrans' performance was
SB 486
Page 5
inconsistent and sometimes directly at odds with the state's
overarching policies, particularly those aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, SSTI noted:
1)Caltrans, with its long history as a highway-building
department, continues to design projects that foster higher
auto-mobility rather than projects that, for example, lead
instead to compact development and lower vehicle miles
traveled.
2)State policies related to greenhouse gas emission reductions
work "around" Caltrans rather than through it, such as SB 375
that places the onus of greenhouse gas emissions reductions on
metropolitan planning organizations and the Air Resources
Board.
3)Caltrans' management has failed to understand sustainability
policies much less require that these policies be incorporated
in the department's programs.
SSTI asserts that California would be better served by a
stronger state transportation department that is better aligned
with California's overarching policy goals, particularly those
related to sustainability.
SB 486 intends to do just that-align the department's efforts
and investments with California's overarching policy goals, as
provided for in the bill. This bill assigns to CTC the
responsibility to establish clear, measurable, specific goals to
achieve declared priorities related to operation and maintenance
of the state's transportation systems while reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
The bill also attempts to better align the Legislature's
priorities with Caltrans' planning processes and to use this
pairing to ensure the department's investments reflect these
priorities.
Within this context, SB 486 seeks to remedy three specific
perceived problems:
1)Caltrans lacks a strong performance management approach. SSTI
made this argument in its report, suggesting that "Caltrans
should dedicate resources to push performance-based management
throughout the organization."
SB 486
Page 6
2)Caltrans' programming documents, namely the ITIP and the
SHOPP, are not sufficiently in line with the state's
overarching goals or the department's long-term planning
efforts. For example, to this point SSTI asserts that the
department's "California Interregional Blueprint provides
sound guidance but often does not effectively guide investment
or policy."
3)Caltrans's ITIP and SHOPP are developed in an insular
environment and therefore fall short of reflecting broader
goals. SSTI suggests that "CalSTA and Caltrans should use CTC
review process to impose a policy review of all proposed
investments."
SB 486 relies on CTC to provide greater oversight of the
department's efforts to help resolve these problems. Under SB
486, CTC will have greater responsibilities to:
1)Develop specific goals and performance measures for Caltrans.
2)Provide guidance in the development of the ITIP to inform the
projects that Caltrans selects to be included in the program.
3)Establish guidelines for the SHOPP.
4)Publically vet the ITIP and the SHOPP.
Suggested amendments :
1)Provisions authorizing CTC to develop specific performance
goals and objectives will help encourage a stronger
performance management approach within Caltrans. However, the
authority to do so should be broader and not tied to specific
priorities. In this way, CTC can impose performance
management requirements as it sees fit, depending on the
circumstances. Likewise, the specific date requirements
should be deleted to give flexibility to CTC.
2)The CTP should be the basis for more specific planning
documents and ultimately Caltrans' programming documents. CTC
should be directed to provide guidance to Caltrans at the
beginning of the CTP process to ensure the commission's
SB 486
Page 7
guidance is ultimately reflected in Caltrans investments via
the STIP and the SHOPP.
3)The one drawback to this is that Caltrans is, and has been for
some time, developing a comprehensive CTP, which is due
December 2015. That effort should continue and new
requirements for guidance should not be imposed at this point
in the process.
4)On the other hand, the next CTP will not be due until 2020,
far too long to wait before the process is improved with CTC
guidance. Therefore, in the interim, CTC should be asked to
provide oversight by way of approval in the development of the
ITSP, from which the 2016 and 2018 STIP will be developed.
5)SB 486 directs Caltrans to develop the ITSP according to
specific priorities that the bill would establish. The
problem with specifying new priorities is that there are
multiple sets of priorities for Caltrans already in place in
existing law. For example, Caltrans is directed to use funds
in the State Highway Account in the following order of
priority: operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the
state highway system; safety improvements; capacity adding
transportation capital improvements; and environmental
enhancement and mitigation. Development of the CTP is
supposed to be consistent with objectives laid out in four
separate provisions of existing law. The SHOPP is supposed to
be developed consistent with its own unique objectives.
Ultimately, rather than add new priorities the planning and
programming processes should be refined and priorities
minimized, condensed, and clarified. In the meantime,
priorities that this bill would add should be deleted so as to
avoid conflicts and confusion. However, CTC should be asked
to evaluate the extent to which Caltrans's draft ITIP and
SHOPP comply with funding priorities already established in
existing law.
6)CTC already provides policy guidance in the development of the
ITIP through its STIP guidelines. As a result, provisions
requiring CTC to develop guidelines for the ITIP should be
deleted because they are unnecessary.
7)One of the benefits of SB 486 is that it requires that the
ITIP be thoroughly vetted in pubic before it gets adopted.
SB 486
Page 8
The committee suggests that Caltrans be required to
incorporate public comments into its final ITIP for maximum
transparency.
The author is expected to take these amendments in committee.
Related legislation: SB 151 (DeSaulnier) requires SHOPP
projects to have capital and support costs allocated by CTC. SB
151 will be heard in this committee on June 23, 2014.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093