Recent Bills Related to Our Transportation Profession

Several bills related to our transportation profession have been introduced for this year. Below is a quick summary.

AB 16 (Perea)– High Speed Rail Authority
This bill would require the High Speed Rail (HSR) authority to make every effort to purchase high-speed train rolling stock and related equipment that are manufactured in California, consistent with federal and state laws.

AB 294 (Portantino) Design Sequencing Contracts
This bill would allow no more than 5 design-sequencing contracts, where Caltrans prepares a design for phases and allows construction to commence before entire project is designed, to be effective until January 1, 2015. A similar bill (AB 1760 Blumenfield) that would have allowed 10 design sequencing contracts was vetoed last year.

AB 345 (Atkins) Vehicles: Traffic Control Devices - Consultation
This bill would require the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) and Caltrans to consult with groups representing users of streets, roads, and highways, such as bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, commercial goods, pedestrians, public transit users, and seniors. This is a very interesting bill because until now CTCDC and Caltrans is only required to consult with local agencies before adopting rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for official traffic control devices.

AB 353 (Cedillo) Freeway Construction
If Caltrans wants to close down a City street or a County highway due to construction of a freeway, they need to enter into an agreement with the agency having jurisdiction over the facility, except if the facility is under the jurisdiction of LA County Metro and i) an agreement with one or more counties and cities is not possible because an impasse has existed for 10 or more years after an initial route was adopted ii) Caltrans had prepared an EIR and established an outreach program. This bill would repeal these provisions establishing an exception for a freeway segment to be constructed without an agreement within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

AB 441 State Planning (Monning) – Transportation Health Impact
Regional Transportation Plans such as general Plans may have one more component that needs to be included – health issues. This bill would require California Transportation Commission (CTC) to include health issues in the guidelines for the preparation of regional transportation plans. This bill would also require that the Governor’s office and Office of Planning and Research develop guidelines that contain advice on how local and regional agencies can incorporate health issues into local or regional general plans.

AB 464 (Olsen) Highway Route 59
State Highway Route 59 is from Route 152 northerly to Route 99 near Merced and from Route 99 near Merced to Snelling. This bill would provide that Route 59 also includes the segment of roadway from Route 132 to Route 108/120.

AB 650 (Blumenfield) Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation
A Transit Task Force with $750,000 budget – This bill would establish the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century. This task force, comprised of 12 members jointly appointed by Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly by March 31, 2012, would need to prepare a written report that contains specified findings and recommendations relating to, among other things, the current state of California’s transit system, the estimated cost of creating the needed system over various terms, and potential sources of funding to sustain the transit system’s needs, and to submit the report by March 31, 2013, to the Governor, the Legislature, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Senate Committee on Rules, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the transportation committees of the Legislature. The task force will be staffed by Institute of Transportation Studies of the University of California.

AB 892 (Carter) Transportation- Federal Pilot Program
This bill repeals the January 1, 2012 deadline that existed for the State of California’s consent to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the surface transportation project delivery pilot program by the United States Secretary of Transportation.

AB 1105 (Gordon) High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
One or both of the HOT lane corridors proposed in Santa Clara County could extend into the adjacent county and the revenues could be shared between the two counties for eligible purposes – only if this bill passes. Otherwise, the 2 HOT lane corridors should be within Santa Clara County limits.

AB 1308 (Miller) Highway Users Tax Account
Currently, if the State Budget is not enacted, moneys in the Highway users Tax Account (primarily funded by state excise fuel taxes) cannot be appropriated for transportation improvement purposes. If the Budget has not been enacted by July 1, this bill would provide that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund are continuously appropriated and may be encumbered for certain purposes until the Budget is enacted. This would be great news because the State funding for transportation improvements projects would not be affected due to any State budget delays.

AJR 5 (Lowenthal) Transportation Revenues
This measure would request the President and the Congress of the United States to consider and enact legislation to conduct a study regarding the feasibility of the collection process for a transportation revenue source based on vehicle miles traveled, and not based on excise tax on gasoline or diesel, in order to facilitate the creation of a reliable and steady transportation funding mechanism for the maintenance and improvement of surface transportation infrastructure.

SB 468 Dept. of Transp. - Coastal Zone Expansion
Existing law provides that Caltrans has full possession and control of the state highway system and imposes various requirements for the development and implementation of transportation projects. This bill would impose additional requirements on Caltrans with respect to proposed capacity increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone. The requirements include local agency collaboration, extensive traffic analysis of the local street system and considering planned transportation improvements including transit in the area.

SB 692 Professional Engineers
This bill would convert the current title-protected engineering disciplines, such as traffic engineering, into practices that require a license. This bill would additionally prohibit the practice of agricultural, chemical, control system, fire protection, industrial, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum, and traffic engineering without the appropriate license issued by the board in the particular discipline.

If you think that I am missing any critical bills related to our profession, please send me details of that bill so that I can include it in the next update. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments at lzhang@camsys.com

Source:
http://media.wix.com/ugd/aa35121b77457fa9c29cedb9faa8f1e4.ugd?dn=ITE SoCal March 2011 Newsletter.pdf

Obama Administration Proposes Major Public Transportation Policy Shift to Highlight Economic Development and Environmental Benefits

In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood proposed at TRB Annual Meeting on January 13, 2010 that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.

In remarks at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, the Secretary announced the Obama Administration’s plans to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs. As part of this initiative, the FTA will immediately rescind budget restrictions issued by the Bush Administration in March of 2005 that focused primarily on how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to its cost.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward. In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.

“This new approach will help us do a much better job of aligning our priorities and values with our transit investments” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. “No longer will we ignore the many benefits that accrue to our environment and our communities when we build or expand rail and bus rapid transit systems.”

FTA will soon initiate a separate rulemaking process, inviting public comment on ways to appropriately measure all the benefits that result from such investments.


Source:
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=103170837&gid=839387&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edot%2Egov%2Faffairs%2F2009%2Ffta0110%2Ehtm&urlhash=Zd6x&trk=news_discuss

Expiration Date No Longer Needed on California PE Stamps

California law was changed regarding professional engineering (PE) stamps. On October 11, 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 645 (Niello) eliminating the requirement to show expiration dates on PE stamps. The seal must continue to show name, number, and discipline, but the "Exp." line in the middle is no longer required. The minimum diameter of the seal remains at 1.5 inches. The bill was passed to avoid holding up projects for replotting and restamping of plans due to a license being renewed prior to construction.

Source:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_645/

DOT to Ban Text-Messaging By Bus and Truck Drivers

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) said it would ban text-messaging by bus drivers, truckers, and railroad engineers and urge states to impose similar restrictions on drivers of passenger cars.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s widely anticipated announcement came Thursday, Oct. 1, at the end of a highly publicized two-day summit on distracted driving by commercial and automobile drivers. DOT recognizes distracted driving as a problem among all drivers, but the department currently has authority only to regulate commercial vehicle operators.

Data released by U.S. DOT showed that 11% of drivers in fatal crashes had been distracted at the time of the accident in 2008, compared with 8% in 2004. Last year, more than 500,000 people were injured and nearly 6,000 were killed in crashes involving inattentive motorists.

This is the federal government's first big push to curb distracted driving. Trucking companies and other potentially affected industries voiced support for the rules, which could take months to implement.

The bigger question may be how to enforce such bans. Technology may be one answer. Companies are offering a range of solutions, such as devices that won't send text messages if they are in motion, and on-board dispatch devices for truckers that go blank once the truck's engine starts.


Sources: http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=82163
http://www.rita.dot.gov/distracted_driving_summit/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125433920096553295.html

Bay Area Expected to Receive $494 Million from ARRA

On Tuesday, February 17, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The law authorizes $789 billion in spending, with the hope of saving the U.S. economy and generating jobs by investing in infrastructure, energy, healthcare, and education.

The ARRA includes $48 billion for the Department of Transportation. Specifically, the proposal includes $27.5 billion in Federal Highway Administration funding and $8.4 billion in Federal Transit Administration funds.

It is estimated that the San Francisco Bay Area will receive roughly $154 million through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) sub-allocated program and $340 million in Federal Transit Administration formula funds.

Detailed list of projects can be accessed at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) website: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/

References:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/TMP-3885_FINAL_VER_022609.pdf
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/TMP-3885_Attach-B-1_and_B-2_02-27-09.pdf
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/TMP-3885_Attach-C-1_and_C-2_02-27-09.pdf

President Obama Signs 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

On Tuesday, February 17, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The law authorizes $789 billion in spending, with the hope of saving the U.S. economy and generating jobs by investing in infrastructure, energy, healthcare, and education.

The ARRA provides $48 billion for transportation infrastructure investment. The final bill includes:
• $27.5 billion for highways and bridges
• $8.4 billion for transit
• $9.3 billion for rail ($8 billion for high-speed rail)
• $1.5 billion for competitive surface transportation grants to state and local governments

Resources:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.txt.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/index.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/qandas.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/expedite.htm

CA Senate Bill 275 Would Convert Traffic Engineering (T.E.) Title to Practice

Senator Mimi Walters has introduced California Senate Bill (SB) 275, presenting a chance to convert the PE registration in traffic engineering into a full-fledged license. The bill would convert the 9 title-protected branches (agricultural, chemical, control systems, fire protection, industrial, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum, and traffic engineering) into practice licenses. The bill would also allow overlap between all branches within every PE’s area of competency, as long as the practice is in connection with and incidental to the P.E.’s branch of licensure.

Under California current law, only civil, electrical, and mechanical engineers are allowed to practice, and only civil engineers are allowed to overlap their practice into electrical or mechanical engineering.

This bill would effectively create a licensing method similar to every other state in the USA, where boundaries between branches are blurred. Most states have a generic PE license that shows no branch of engineering on the PE stamp. Under SB 275, California would follow a more restricted model that closely resembles Nevada’s, where PE’s can collect licensure in one or several branches, with overlap recognized between branches.

The passage of the bill would allow California traffic engineers to qualify for the Professional Traffic Operations Engineer certificate, for which they are currently ineligible. It would also help to reinvigorate Oregon’s traffic engineering license, which is languishing as the sole T.E. practice license in the country.

The co-sponsors of the bill are the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Chemical Industry Council of California. They are interested in the licensure of agricultural engineers and chemical engineers, respectively.

The opposition is likely to come from the Professional Engineers of California Government (PECG), and the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) California, formerly known as CELSOC. They object to their perceived dilution of powers in the civil engineering license.

A bill supporter is the Registered Traffic Engineers of America (RTEA), which has been using its membership dues for a lobbyist to gather support for SB 275. RTEA has been discouraging traffic engineers who support this bill from contacting legislators and Caltrans workers from complaining to PECG, because RTEA feels such contact does not help the bill’s progress. Instead, RTEA’s strategy has been to ask traffic engineers to find users of engineering services, such as major corporations and trade associations, to support the bill.


References:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_275_bill_20090224_introduced.html
http://leginfo.ca.gov
http://www.techpubs.net/clcpe.html

BART Extension to San Jose

On December 2, 2008, the Santa Clara County register of voters certified results of the Nov. 4 election including the measure to help fund a BART extension into the South Bay.

Measure B, the proposal to increase the sales tax in Santa Clara County by one-eighth of a cent to raise money for the long-planned BART project, won with 66.78 percent approval - a margin of .11 percent over the required 66.67 percent.

References:
http://barttosiliconvalley.com/
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/meas/B/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/03/BACM14GIGV.DTL

Approved: California High-Speed Rail (Prop 1A)

Californian voters have approved Proposition 1A (Yes: 5,072,778/52.1%, No: 4,661,366/47.9%) giving the go-ahead on the proposed High-Speed Train System linking all major cities in California.

The Proposition 1A authorizes the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund (1) pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California, and (2) capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity, improve safety, or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed train system. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds.This measure will cost the state about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) of the bonds, which is equivalent of payments of about $647 million per year.

When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.