Transportation Legislation Affecting the S.F. Bay Area

Recent Bills Related to Our Transportation Profession

2011-04-04T12:08:00.000-07:00

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

2010-01-14T12:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-02T12:05:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-03-23T12:19:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-23T11:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-01-19T14:37:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-11-06T14:54:00.001-08:00

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.

House Lawmakers Push for Infrastructure Improvement Programs

2008-10-31T10:16:00.000-07:00

Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe investments in transportation and infrastructure will help boost the nation's economy and add jobs. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the U.S. desperately needs infrastructure improvements. "The level of investment we're doing today, we're falling further and further behind," Oberstar said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, also had actively work on an economic recovery bill, with money for transportation and public works. Ms. Pelosi said this week that she would try to work with President Bush to “find bipartisan agreement on an economic recovery package.” She emphasized the need for “fiscal discipline,” and House leadership aides said that any bill passed this year was unlikely to provide more than $100 billion.

State officials said work on 3,000 highway projects could begin in 30 to 90 days, while mass transit would take about 90 days to begin $8 billion in projects.

The senior Republican on the committee, Representative John L. Mica of Florida, heartily endorsed the effort. “Every billion dollars of spending on highways and transportation projects results in 35,000 new jobs,” Mr. Mica said, using a figure in the midrange of estimates by economists. The total package will probably cost $200 billion to $300 billion, Mr. Mica predicted. Business executives and some economists said that such spending would increase economic activity, national income and productivity, thus generating revenue for the government.

Last month, the House passed a $60 billion stimulus package, half of which was for transportation and infrastructure projects. But the measure stalled in the Senate when President Bush indicated he would veto it.

While there is bipartisan support for long-term investments in public infrastructure, the debate has turned on how much and where. Some critics have also raised questions about where the new transportation dollars will come from and how far they would go to help the economy overall.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/washington/30spend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/33545479.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGcBHvnIaKwyq-VPObjMSdZvM4fgD944BPPGA

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train

2008-10-27T14:34:00.000-07:00

In 1996, the state created the California High-Speed Rail Authority (the authority) to develop an intercity train system that can operate at speeds of 200 miles per hour or faster to connect the major metropolitan areas of California, and provide service between northern California and southern California.

Over the past 12 years, the authority has spent about $60 million for pre-construction activities, such as environmental studies and planning, related to the development of a high-speed train system. The proposed system would use electric trains and connect the major metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Sacramento, through the Central Valley, into Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties), and San Diego.

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. The bond funds would be available when appropriated by the Legislature. 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.

The proposition is on the ballot for the November 4th, 2008 General Election.

Sources:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/1A/

Senate and House Approved Legislation Replenishing Highway Trust Fund with $8 Billion

2008-09-12T11:33:00.000-07:00

On September 10, 2008, the Senate voted and passed legislation replenishing the Highway Trust Fund with an $8 billion transfer from the general federal government coffers, after Senate Republicans dropped their opposition. On September 11, 2008, the House voted 376-29 on the measure to shore up the 52-year-old highway trust fund.

The Highway Trust Fund is used to pay for construction of and repairs to the country's roads, highways and bridges. A spokesman for the House Transportation Committee said the House would likely move to approve the final version of the bill this week.

President Bush is expected to sign this legislation soon.

Sources: The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, September 11, 2008.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_fI-3wOvF24DtOJDWaS8cJzrqsAD93580LO0

Senate Committee Approves $8 Billion Fix for Highway Trust Fund

2008-07-18T15:28:00.000-07:00

On July 10, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal 2009 budget for the Department of Transportation, including $8 billion for the Highway Trust Fund to prevent a projected shortfall in revenues promised to states. The Appropriations Committee agreed to $66.8 billion for transportation in '09, a $2.1 billion increase over 2008 and $3 billion more than President Bush requested. The bill also fully funds the 2009 stipulations of the SAFETEA-LU act for federal highway and transit programs at about $51.5 billion combined.

Sources:
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/event_release.cfm?uid=5351
http://appropriations.senate.gov/transportation.cfm

Traffic Fines to Double on Busy Streets in S.F.

2008-07-15T13:22:00.000-07:00

Motorists who break traffic laws on two dangerous corridors in San Francisco will face double fines for such violations as speeding, drunken driving and running a red light, under a bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law on July 10, 2008. The new fines will take effect Jan. 1, 2009.

The routes are part of the state highway system that runs on surface streets in San Francisco: 19th Avenue and Park Presidio in the Sunset and Richmond districts and Van Ness Avenue and Lombard Street from Civic Center to the Presidio. The base fine for speeding up to 15 mph above the 30 mph speed limit, for instance, will rise to $137.50.

Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/11/BATP11ND5D.DTL&tsp=1

Introduction

2008-07-11T09:11:00.000-07:00

My name is Lin Zhang, an Associate with Cambridge Systematics, Inc., in Oakland, California. I have been assigned the responsibility of keeping you aware of national, state and local legislation that is especially related to transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Thanks to the former Legislative Chair, Vijay Kovvali, for his significant contributions. I will try my best to continue this task on keeping you updated on legislative news. Meanwhile, if you know any information about legislation that could be of interest to the broader transportation community, please let me know. My e-mail address is lzhang@camsys.com.

Prima Facie Speed Limit Near Schools - 15 mph

2008-07-11T09:06:00.000-07:00

The previous law established a 25 miles per hour (mph) prima facie limit when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period.

A new bill, which was approved by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 10, 2007, increases motor vehicle speed restrictions on roadways near schools. Specifically, this bill:

Increases, from 500 feet to 1,000 feet, the distance from a school within which the speed limit is 25 mph.
Reduces, from 25 mph to 15 mph, the speed limit for motor vehicles operated within 500 feet of, and on a roadway adjacent to, a school.
Clarifies that these speed limits apply to vehicles in all lanes of the adjacent roadway and when children are "present" instead of while they are "going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess."

Sources: http://www.totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=5931
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_321_cfa_20070417_145933_asm_comm.html

New/Replaced Traffic Signals in CA Required to Detect Bicycles/Motorcycles

2008-07-11T09:01:00.000-07:00

On October 8, 2007, Governor Schwazenegger signed a bill, AB 1581, which will require all new and replaced traffic signals to detect bicycle and motorcycle traffic. This bill will take effect when Caltrans adopts uniform standards, specifications, and guidelines for the detection of bicycle and motorcycle traffic.

This bill specifies that traffic signals should be installed and maintained, to the extent feasible and in conformance with professional engineering practices, so as to detect lawful bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. Cities and counties are not required to comply with those requirements until Caltrans has established uniform standards, specifications, and guidelines for the detection of bicycles and motorcycles by traffic-actuated signals and related signal timing. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Sources: http://www.ebbc.org/?q=node/156 http://www.calbike.org/legislation07.htm http://lists.svbc.dreamhost.com/pipermail/bikes-svbc.dreamhost.com/2007-October/009323.html http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/2007-October/001651.html

The Rebuild California Plan – Transportation (Proposition 1A)

2006-11-02T18:01:00.000-08:00

In March 2002 voters approved Proposition 42 requiring the sales tax on gasoline be used for transportation improvements. A loophole in the law has allowed politicians to divert these funds for other purposes. Consequently, in the last four years nearly $2.5 billion has been siphoned
away from road, highway and transit projects. Proposition 1A, the Transportation Funding Protection Act, which would close this loophole. It would dedicate the sales tax on motor fuels for transportation improvements, including funding for traffic congestion relief projects, safety improvements and construction and maintenance of streets and roads. Also, this proposition would require the repayment of the $2.5 billion in gas tax revenues that have been diverted to non-transportation programs over the past four years. Prop. 1A provides “fair share” funding to all cities and counties in the state to ease local congestion and improve deteriorating roadways.

Proponents of 1A argue that the measure dedicates taxes we already pay at the pump for transportation improvements like building roads, congestion relief, and safety repairs. 1A closes a loophole in the law to prevent politicians from spending gas taxes on other programs.

Opponents of 1A argue that education, health care, and disaster relief should be California's top priorities. In hard economic times, "autopilot" budgeting causes massive unnecessary cuts to schools, firefighters, trauma centers, and health care. The Governor and Legislature must have flexibility to meet the needs of Californians.

The proposition is on the ballot for the November 7th, 2006 General Election.

Sources:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/1A_11_2006.htm
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/1A/

The Rebuild California Plan - Highways and Air Pollution (Proposition 1B)

2006-11-02T17:43:00.000-08:00

Congestion in California carries a price tag over 20 billion dollars every year in wasted gasoline, time and productivity. Proposition 1B authorizes the state to sell about $20 billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects to relieve congestion. The funds from the measure are marked for:

Congestion Reduction, Highway and Local Road Improvement ($11.3 billion)
For capital improvements to reduce congestion and increase capacity on state highways, local roads, and public transit for grants available to locally funded transportation projects, as well as for projects to rehabilitate state highways and local roads.

Public Transportatio ($4 billion)
To make capital improvements to local transit services and the state’s intercity rail service. These improvements would include purchasing buses and rail cars, as well as making safety enhancements to existing transit facilities.

Goods Movement and Air Quality ($3.2 billion)
For projects to improve the movement of goods—through the ports, on the state highway and rail systems, and between California and Mexico—and for projects to improve air quality by reducing emissions related to goods movement and replacing or retrofitting school buses.

Safety and Security ($1.5 billion)
For projects to increase protection against a security threat or improve disaster response capabilities on transit systems; as well as for grants to improve the safety of rail crossings to seismically retrofit local bridges, ramps, and overpasses; and to improve security and disaster planning in publicly owned ports, harbors, and ferry terminals.

Proponents of the proposition argue that the measure jump-starts traffic relief, mass transit, and safety improvements in every corner of the state without raising taxes. Opponents of the measure argue that California cannot afford to continue borrowing its way into a false sense of economic security. More borrowing means worsening budget deficits. The proposition is on the ballot for the November 7th, 2006 General Election.

Sources:

California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2025

2006-08-14T17:31:00.000-07:00

The California Transportation Plan (CTP), provides the transportation vision for California for 2025 and beyond. It is the product of extensive public outreach and consultation with transportation partners and stakeholders, presents a vision for California's future transportation system, and defines goals, policies, and strategies to reach the vision. The CTP vision is one of a fully integrated, multimodal, sustainable transportation system that supports the three outcomes (3Es) that define quality of life – prosperous economy, quality environment, and social equity.
The CTP is a long-range transportation policy plan that explores the social, economic, and technological trends and demographic changes anticipated over the next 20 years and their potential influence on travel behavior. The CTP offers a blueprint for a thoughtful and reasoned approach for meeting California’s future mobility needs. This plan presents strategies for improving mobility while strongly supporting a growing economy and healthy environment, and providing equitable opportunities for all Californians. The CTP 2025 provides:

A People's plan - developed through extensive public outreach and consultation with transportation partners and stakeholders
A Vision of Balanced System - The CTP looks to the future by envisioning a balanced transportation system that promotes sustainability. It incorporates the roadway system, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, maintenance and communication facilities, railways, airports, seaports, spaceports, pipelines, and the publicly and privately owned vehicles that travel on them.
A Vision of Sustainability - The CTP strives to to ensure that economic, environmental, and social considerations are factored into decisions affecting transportation activity to develop a sustainable society. Sustainability will result in “livable communities” that enhance our quality of life and our economy and are characterized by mixed land uses, compact development, a wide range of housing and transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods, a sense of place, preservation of open space and farmland, and rehabilitation and redevelopment in existing communities.
Mobility and Accessibility - Transportation system performance can be measured by the mobility and accessibility it provides the user. The CTP proposes goals, policies, strategies, and the establishment of performance measures to enhance California’s mobility and accessibility over the next two decades. It builds on current activities and policies, and proposes new approaches to make the system safer and more efficient and to provide more transportation choices for its users.
Trends and Challenges - The first step in determining how to achieve the vision for California’s transportation system is an assessment and identification of the current and projected trends and
challenges under which the CTP’s goals, policies, and strategies will be implemented.

To develop a seamless, integrated, sustainable transportation system that boosts California economy and offers a high degree of mobility and accessibility to California’s growing population, the CTP adopts colloboration, leadership, innovation, and communication as its guiding principles.

Sources:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp.htm

President Bush's Proposed FY 2007 DOT Budget

2006-02-15T16:48:00.000-08:00

The proposed budget for FY 2007 by President Bush provides highest priority to transportation safety. The budget prioritizes improving Aviation Safety, Highway Safety and transportation mobility. To meet these priorities the 2007 budget:

Supports an interagency effort to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System to meet growing demand for airspace capacity;
Funds intercity passenger rail at a level that will encourage Amtrak to undertake meaningful reforms and control spending;
Increases funding for critical highway safety programs in support of changes made by the recently-enacted surface transportation reauthorization law; and
Proposes a $100 million pilot program to demonstrate the benefits of innovative methods of financing highway construction and managing congestion.

The 2007 transportation budget is for $65.6 billion with around $50 billion for transit, highways and safety programs. The budget provides $13.7 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and $8.9 billion for the Federal Transit Administration. The funding also includes $900 million for Amtrak, a reduction of 400 million from the $1.3 billion funding in 2006.

While the administration adheres to the SAFETEA-LU programs in most respects, the transit funding was set at $8.87 billion in FY 2007, 100 million dollars below the authorized and guaranteed level of $8.97 billion in the SAFETEA-LU budget. Under the President’s budget, aviation capital programs would receive $5.25 billion, which is $1.6 billion or 23 percent less than the level guaranteed by the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.

Sources:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/budget.html

http://www.apta.com/media/releases/060206dot_response.cfm

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/mineteasp020606.htm

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Modules

2006-02-15T16:31:00.000-08:00

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) facilitates the deployment of light emitting diode (LED) traffic signal and pedestrian modules for the purpose of energy conservation. Summary points of the legislation include:

The legislative provisions went into effect on January 1, 2006, and applies specifically to manufacturers;
The legislation requires that signal modules manufactured or imported after January 1, 2006, must meet or exceed the energy efficiency requirements specified in the legislation;
The legislation adopts the energy efficiency criteria in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program for traffic signal and pedestrian modules, (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing) which in turn reference the ITE “Interim LED Purchase Specification, Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads, Part 2: Light Emitting Diode (LED) Vehicle Traffic Signal Modules” (VTCSH Part 2);
The legislation does not impact existing stock of product on hand by either suppliers or agencies if that stock was manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2006; and
Replacement parts are not covered by the legislation

The implications for public agencies are:

The legislation does not require agencies to retrofit their traffic signals;
Many agencies are actively converting to LED signal modules, primarily to reduce energy costs (based on survey information from AASHTO and ITE);
The upfront capital cost of funding the conversion appears to be the most significant hurdle;
There do not appear to be any significant technical issues;
Replacement parts for incandescent traffic signal modules should be available initially but may diminish over time;
The Department of Energy issued a final rule in the Federal Register on October 18, 2005, adopting the legislated standards; and
The Department of Energy expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Spring 2006 covering test procedures and other administrative matters.

To obtain further information on the legislation:

FHWA is sponsoring a NTOC web cast on February 23, 2006 on the implications of the 2005 Energy Policy Act on Owners and Operators of Traffic and Pedestrian Signals (http://www.ntoctalks.com/web_casts.php).
ITE, AASHTO and APWA will provide information to its members as it becomes available, particularly regarding the upcoming NPRM
ITE will sponsor a discussion forum on the legislative requirements and implications as part of the 2006 Technical Conference and Annual Meeting. For meeting information, refer to the ITE web site at http://www.ite.org/.

Sources:

Safety in SAFETEA-LU

2006-02-15T14:37:00.000-08:00

SAFETEA-LU provides special emphasis on Safety by provisioning $6.3 billion for highway safety programs over the five year period of this legislation. The bill establishes a Highway Safely Improvement Program (HSIP), which includes $880 million for the railway-highway grade crossing program and $90 million for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. The remainder of the money is distributed by formula. Highway safety investment through SAFETEA-LU is provided by funding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The safety funding by fiscal year is as follows:

Guaranteed Funding for Highway Safety (in millions of dollars)

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009	Total
FMCA	$364	$443	$495	$517	$528	$541	$2,888
NHTSA	$298	$299	$694	$700	$711	$729	$3,430
Total	$662	$742	$1,189	$1,217	$1,239	$1,270	$6,318

NHTSA safety program allocates funding for the Highway Safety Research and Outreach Program. Required studies from this program will focus on crash data, distracted drivers, pedestrian safety and alcohol-impaired driving. The bill creates a new five-year, $34.5-billion State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Incentives Grant program to provide additional funding to states that initiate programs that improve safety data collection and sharing.

To obtain “core” safety funds a State must have in effect an HSIP under which the State:

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities
produces a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems
evaluates the plan regularly
submits an annual report to the Secretary

States that do not develop a strategic plan by October 2007 will have their HSIP apportionment frozen at the FY07 funding level. SHSP will help identify key safety needs of the State and guide investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in fatalities and injuries on all public roads.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is leading the effort to develop the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to identify safety projects and strategies that address the key safety needs of the State of California. Through SHSP, California plans on providing a comprehensive framework for data-driven decision-making, utilizing the four E’s – engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. The California SHSP will establish statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas in consultation with federal, state, local, and private sector safety stakeholders. There are two SHSP summits planned for March 7, 2006 in Sacramento, California; and March 9, 2006 in Ontario, California. Further information on the California SHSP program is available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/SHSP.

Sources:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200510/ai_n15715910
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/SHSP/
American Road & Transportation Builders Association, “SAFETEA-LU - An Analysis”, September 2005.

SAFETEA-LU: Funding

2005-10-10T15:12:00.000-07:00

I will start out my first article by briefing you on the funding aspects of the new 1,700-page federal surface transportation bill - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; or SAFETEA-LU for short. SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 2004-2009, and has been signed into legislation by President George Bush on August 10, 2005. At $286.4 billion, SAFETEA-LU represents the largest surface transportation investment in U.S. history, and builds on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) in shaping the highway program to meet the Nation's changing transportation needs. SAFETEA-LU amounts to an inflation-adjusted increase of about 5 percent for highways and 16 percent for transit over TEA-21— the previous six year transportation act which expired nearly two years ago. Detailed federal information on programs, provisions, and funding of SAFETY-LU can be obtained from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm.

Guaranteed Funding Totals by Agency: TEA-21 & SAFETEA-LU (in millions)

Agency	TEA-21	SAFETEA-LU	Increase
Federal Highway Administration	$163,000	$227,560	39.6%
Federal Transit Administration	$36,000	$52,579	31.5%
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration	$1,300	$2,888	122.2%
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration	$1,700	$3,430	101.8%
Total	$202,000	$286,457	41.8%

The SAFETEA-LU revenue allocations to California can be broken down into two categories: earmarks and formula allocations. California will receive $21.6 billion in guaranteed formula funding for California highways and transit, an increase of $4.4 billion over the TEA-21 funding. Congressional earmarks for California in SAFETEA-LU total to $2.65 billion dollars for 546 projects, which represents 11% of the total national investment. Of which, a total of 116 projects worth $734.4 million are earmarked for Bay Area. California’s earmark allocation is $73 per capita or 15 percent under the average for the nation. The new bill will ensure that states receive a minimum of 92 cents for every dollar that they contribute to the Highway Trust Fund by 2008. The rate of return will start at 90.5 cents per dollar in 2005 and grow to 92 cents over the next four years. The Highway Trust Fund is made up on the 18.4 cents per gallon in federal gasoline taxes paid at the pump. An analysis of SAFETEA-LU legislation for Bay Area is conducted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and is available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/legislation/SAFETEA.htm.

Sources: