BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 983
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 983 (Hern�ndez) - As Amended: June 15, 2014
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant
SUBJECT : California Transportation Commission: high-occupancy
toll lanes
SUMMARY : Extends indefinitely the California Transportation
Commission's (CTC's) authority to approve regional
transportation agencies' applications to develop and operate
high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends indefinitely the process whereby CTC reviews and
approves applications from regional transportation agencies to
develop and operate HOT lanes.
2)Deletes the limitation on the number (four) of HOT lane
applications CTC may approve, thereby granting open-ended
authority to approve applications.
3)Directs regional transportation agencies to reimburse CTC for
its costs and expenses in reviewing HOT lane applications.
4)Adds to the definition of "regional transportation agency"
county transportation authorities in the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifically authorizes HOT lane facilities in Alameda, San
Diego, and Santa Clara counties.
2)Until January 1, 2012, authorized any regional transportation
agency to apply to CTC for authority to develop and operate
HOT lanes.
3)Limited CTC to approving no more than four applications: two
in northern California and two in southern California. CTC
found HOT lane facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los
Angeles County, and Riverside County eligible under this
SB 983
Page 2
provision.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : HOT lanes are increasingly being implemented in
metropolitan areas around the state and the nation. HOT lanes
allow single-occupant or lower-occupancy vehicles to use a
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane for a fee, while maintaining
free or reduced travel to qualifying HOVs. The acknowledged
benefits of HOT lanes include enhanced mobility and travel
options in congested corridors and better usage of underutilized
HOV lanes.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was the first
agency to be granted authority to operate a HOT lane, on
Interstate 15 (AB 713 (Goldsmith), Chapter 962, Statutes of
1993). Subsequently, AB 2032 (Dutra), Chapter 418, Statutes of
2004, authorized HOT lane facilities in Alameda, San Diego, and
Santa Clara counties. With the successful implementation of
these programs, which were all originally authorized as
demonstration programs then later extended indefinitely, the
Legislature delegated responsibility for approving toll
facilities under certain conditions to the CTC (AB 1467 (Nunez),
Chapter 32, Statutes of 2005) until January 1, 2012. This
delegation was limited to no more than four projects.
Although to date only a handful of regional transportation
agencies have authority to operate HOT lanes and only on a
limited number of corridors, it is clear that California is in
the embryonic stage of what promises to be a substantial
build-out of HOT lanes around the state in the very near future.
In fact, last year as part of the Governor's proposed budget,
the Governor directed the California State Transportation Agency
(CalSTA) to convene a workgroup consisting of state and local
transportation stakeholders to, among other tasks, explore
long-term, pay-as-you-go funding options. As a result, CalSTA
released in February of this year its vision and interim
recommendations in a report entitled California Transportation
Infrastructure Priorities: Vision and Interim Recommendations,
commonly referred to as CTIP. Two of the recommendations were:
1)Work with the Legislature to expand the California Department
of Transportation's (Caltrans') use of pricing and express
lanes to better manage congestion and the operation of the
SB 983
Page 3
state highway system while generating new revenues for
preservation and other corridor improvements.
2)Support efforts to maintain and expand the availability of
local funds dedicated to transportation improvements.
SB 983 expands the potential for HOT lanes in California by
granting CTC broad, indefinite authority to review and approve
HOT lane applications submitted by regional transportation
agencies.
Given the success of multiple HOT lane demonstration programs,
at this point in time it is appropriate to provide an
administrative process whereby regional transportation agencies
can work with state transportation agencies (namely, CTC and
Caltrans) to develop HOT lane facilities. Regional
transportation agencies up and down the state, as well as
Caltrans, struggle with meeting the challenges of increasing
traffic congestion and decreasing transportation revenue.
Although HOT lanes should be, first and foremost, a congestion
management tool, they may have the added benefit of generating
net revenue that can be put back into the corridor from which it
was generated for additional improvements or other benefits.
Writing in opposition to SB 983 unless it is amended, the
Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) does not
argue that HOT lanes should be disallowed, but rather that the
state should share in what PECG describes as a monetization of
state assets. At a minimum, PECG argues, regional
transportation agencies building HOT lanes should be required to
pay for the maintenance of the HOT lanes rather than pass those
costs on to the state.
Additionally, PECG believes that Caltrans should also be granted
authority to develop and operate HOT lanes. PECG is not alone
on this point. This issue is actually part of a bigger
discussion being had within the Administration as part of its
CTIP efforts. Like many regional transportation agencies,
Caltrans struggles to manage congestion with little money for
improvements. HOT lanes are viewed as a potentially viable
tool, even for the state, to combat this growing problem.
Granting Caltrans the authority to develop and operate HOT lanes
is somewhat problematic (although not insurmountable) but is
certainly deserving of future discussions. Whatever authority
SB 983
Page 4
is ultimately granted should carefully align the appropriate
roles and responsibilities with the appropriate level of
government. For example, regional transportation agencies are
generally responsible for improvements in dense, metropolitan
areas and Caltrans is generally responsible for interregional
transportation (although it does perform much of the work for
some of the smaller regions). It could be problematic if
regional transportation agencies were authorized to develop HOT
lanes in interregional corridors and if Caltrans was authorized
to develop HOT lanes in metropolitan areas.
Suggested amendments : CTC's previous authority to approve up to
four HOT lane projects required CTC to develop guidelines for
the process consistent with established standards, requirements,
and limitations that applied to other, specific HOT lanes. Not
all of these standards, requirements, and limitations are
equally important. A few stand out and have repeatedly been
specified in legislation authorizing individual HOT lane
projects. SB 983 should be amended to condition CTC's approval
to develop HOT lanes on these key standards, requirements, and
limitations being met:
1)Any HOT lane project should be implemented in cooperation with
Caltrans and with active participation of the California
Highway Patrol pursuant to an agreement that addresses all
matters related to design, construction, maintenance, and
operation of the HOT lanes. Caltrans is responsible for
operation of the overall state highway system and should be
actively involved in the development of any regionally
sponsored HOT lane facility to ensure continuity and efficient
operation of the system.
2)The regional transportation agency proposing the HOT lane
project and bearing the project risks (including financial
risks) should be the entity responsible for setting tolls and
allocating toll revenues and toll revenues should be allocated
pursuant to an adopted expenditure plan. This will ensure the
expenditure plan is vetted in public.
3)However, the regional transportation planning agency should be
responsible for paying for maintenance of the HOT lane
facility and should not pass those costs onto the state.
4)HOT lanes cannot prevent Caltrans or any local agency from
constructing facilities that compete with a HOT lane and the
SB 983
Page 5
regional transportation agency cannot be entitled to
compensation for adverse effects on toll revenues due to
competing facilities.
These amendments will ensure that all HOT lane facilities
approved by the CTC will include, at a minimum, these key
elements. The CTC will continue to have the authority to
establish appropriate guidelines to direct other elements of a
HOT lane project.
Related legislation: AB 2250 (Daly) requires any revenue
generated in managed lanes to be used in the corridor in which
it was generated. The bill is in Senate Transportation and
Housing.
SB 1298 (Hern�ndez) repeals and recasts specific authority for
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to
operate a value-pricing and transit development program,
including HOT lanes on State Routes 10 and 110. SB 1298 is
being heard in this committee on June 23, 2014.
Previous legislation : AB 1467 (Nunez), Chapter 32, Statutes of
2005, originally granted authority to the CTC to review regional
transportation agencies' applications for HOT lanes, for up to
four projects, until January 1, 2012.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Professional Engineers in California Government
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093