AB 1459: Toll lanes: County of Orange.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2015-04-14
Existing law authorizes certain toll facilities on public highways. Existing law creates the Orange County Transportation Authority with various powers and duties.
This bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation from seeking or providing funding for a toll facility, as defined, to be implemented and constructed lane on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange unless the project is approved by a 2/3 vote of the electorate in the county. Orange County Transportation Authority.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity for special legislation.
Existing law authorizes certain toll facilities on public highways.
This bill would prohibit a toll facility, as defined, to be implemented and constructed on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange unless approved by a 2/3 vote of the electorate in the county.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity for special legislation.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)In the State of California, traffic congestion management is critical and the congestion management process is a systematic approach, developed to provide for the safe and effective management and operation of our local, state, and federal transportation facilities.
(b)There are many ways to manage traffic congestion, including toll facilities and high-occupancy toll lanes.
(c)In Orange County, for more than 20 years, Measure M, the one-half cent sales tax for transportation improvements, has been the major funding source for traffic congestion relief. Measure M was first approved by Orange County voters in 1990, and renewed by voters as Measure M2 for a 30-year extension in 2006. The measure raises the sales tax in Orange County by one-half cent through 2041. By the year 2041, the M2 program plans to deliver approximately $15.8 billion worth of transportation improvements to Orange County.
(d)When Orange County voters approved Measure M2, there was no mention in the ballot language of high-occupancy toll lanes or toll lanes as an eligible project to receive funding. In fact, while toll lane language was once considered to be included, it was removed for fear that Measure M2 would not pass.
(e)In December of 2013, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approved a plan to widen the I-405 freeway between Euclid Street and Interstate 605 with one lane in each direction. This plan was sent to the Department of Transportation for its approval. In July 2014, the department released its decision to leverage this construction, paid for with Measure M2 dollars, to build one toll lane in each direction that will combine with the existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to operate as a new toll lane facility. The existing HOV lane will be combined with the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane so that there will be two HOT/express lanes in each direction between SR-73 and the I-605. The toll at peak usage is estimated to be $9.91, in 2013 dollars, for a one-way trip.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the will of the voters of Orange County and to require a two-thirds vote of the residents of Orange County to approve the construction of a toll lane on a public highway in that county. Orange County Transportation Authority in order to approve construction of a toll lane funded by the Department of Transportation on a public highway in Orange County.
SEC. 2.Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 31495) is added to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read:9.Orange County Toll Facilities Lanes31495.(a)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, division or Article 3 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 1 of Division 1, or any other law, a toll facility shall not be implemented and constructed on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the county. the Department of Transportation shall not seek or provide funding for construction of a toll lane on a public highway in the County of Orange unless the toll lane project is first approved by a two-thirds vote of the Orange County Transportation Authority.
(b)Public highway means a state or local agency highway, road, or street and includes a bridge.(c)Toll facility Toll lane means a toll road, toll bridge, toll lane, or any other facility lane on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange for which a toll is to be charged, and includes the entire length of the portion of the public highway that is subject to the toll. Toll facility Toll lane includes a high-occupancy toll lane.(d)Nothing in this section prohibits charges imposed for parking associated with a public highway.SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the County of Orange, where a new toll facility lane would have significant access and economic impacts on the various communities along highway routes within the county.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)In the State of California, traffic congestion management is critical and the congestion management process is a systematic approach, developed to provide for the safe and effective management and operation of our local, state, and federal transportation facilities.
(b)There are many ways to manage traffic congestion, including toll facilities and high-occupancy toll lanes.
(c)In Orange County, for more than 20 years, Measure M, the one-half cent sales tax for transportation improvements, has been the major funding source for traffic congestion relief. Measure M was first approved by Orange County voters in 1990, and renewed by voters as Measure M2 for a 30-year extension in 2006. The measure raises the sales tax in Orange County by one-half cent through 2041. By the year 2041, the M2 program plans to deliver approximately $15.8 billion worth of transportation improvements to Orange County.
(d)When Orange County voters approved Measure M2, there was no mention in the ballot language of high-occupancy toll lanes or toll lanes as an eligible project to receive funding. In fact, while toll lane language was once considered to be included, it was removed for fear that Measure M2 would not pass.
(e)In December of 2013, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approved a plan to widen the I-405 freeway between Euclid Street and Interstate 605 with one lane in each direction. This plan was sent to the Department of Transportation for its approval. In July 2014, the department released its decision to leverage this construction, paid for with Measure M2 dollars, to build one toll lane in each direction that will combine with the existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to operate as a new toll lane facility. The existing HOV lane will be combined with the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane so that there will be two HOT/express lanes in each direction between SR-73 and the I-605. The toll at peak usage is estimated to be $9.91, in 2013 dollars, for a one-way trip.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the will of the voters of Orange County and to require a vote of the residents of Orange County to approve the construction of a toll lane on a public highway in that county.
SEC. 2.Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 31495) is added to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read:9.Orange County Toll Facilities31495.(a)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, Article 3 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 1 of Division 1, or any other law, a toll facility shall not be implemented and constructed on a public highway within the boundaries of the County of Orange unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the county.
(b)Public highway means a state or local agency highway, road, or street and includes a bridge.
(c)Toll facility means a toll road, toll bridge, toll lane, or any other facility on a public highway within boundaries of the County of Orange for which a toll is to be charged, and includes the entire length of the portion of the public highway that is subject to the toll. Toll facility includes a high-occupancy toll lane.
(d)Nothing in this section prohibits charges imposed for parking associated with a public highway.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the County of Orange, where a new toll facility would have significant access and economic impacts on the various communities along highway routes within the county.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2015 | Introduced. To print. |
| Mar 1, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 31. |
| Mar 2, 2015 | Read first time. |
| Apr 13, 2015 | Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and L. GOV. |
| Apr 14, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 15, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 21, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. |
| Jan 31, 2016 | Died pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. |
| Feb 1, 2016 | From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2015 | Reconsideration. | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
|
| Apr 20, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government] | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Failed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
AB 1459
Page 3
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1459
(Kim) – As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Toll lanes: County of Orange
SUMMARY: Prohibits the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from seeking or providing funding for the construction of a toll lane on a public highway in Orange County unless the toll lane project is first approved by a two-thirds vote of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Specifically, this bill:
Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the history of Orange County's sales tax measure for transportation and the Interstate 405 (I-405) high-occupancy toll (HOT) project.
States that it is the intent of the Legislature to protect the will of the voters of Orange County by requiring a two-thirds vote of OCTA in order to approve construction of a toll lane funded by Caltrans on a public highway in Orange County.
Prohibits Caltrans, notwithstanding certain provisions of law, from seeking or providing funding for construction of a toll lane on a public highway in Orange County unless the toll lane project is first approved by a two-thirds vote of OCTA.
EXISTING LAW:
Prescribes the membership of OCTA as follows:
Five members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, appointed by the board;
Ten city members, each of which must be a mayor or a city council member serving within the county; and,
Two public members appointed by a majority vote of the other 15 voting members of OCTA; public members may not be elected officials.
Grants OCTA broad authority to acquire, construct, develop, lease, own, operate, and control transportation facilities in Orange County.
Generally requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Sets forth the process, parameters, and guidelines for preparing an EIR, including procedures meant to ensure opportunities for public participation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: In 2006, Orange County voters voted to renew a half-cent sales tax for transportation (Measure M2). The measure included funding for a project to add one general purpose lane in each direction on a 16-mile stretch of I-405 between Costa Mesa and Seal Beach. The project is being developed jointly between Caltrans and OCTA, with Caltrans being the lead agency.
The I-405 draft EIR was released in May 2012 and included three build alternatives in addition to the no-build alternative. All of the build alternatives included at least one general purpose lane in each direction, as provided for and approved in Measure M2. One of the build alternatives included HOT lanes as part of the proposed solution.
The proposal to develop HOT lanes met with contentious public outcry. Opponents argued that HOT lanes would essentially be a "tax on a tax" because the lanes would first be built with sales tax measure money and, after they were built, drivers would have to pay yet again to use them. Others argued that the HOT lanes would hurt local businesses because there would be few exits within the HOT lane facility and traffic would bypass cities within the interior stretches of the HOT lane corridor.
OCTA ultimately voted to recommend to Caltrans that the project proceed with construction of one general purpose lane in each direction, without HOT lanes, consistent with Measure M2. However, Caltrans, as the project lead, has the final decision on the project alternative and in July 2014 opted to proceed with the HOT lane alternative, despite OCTA's objections.
To date, the issue of the I-405 HOT lane project is not yet entirely resolved. Earlier in the year, Caltrans committed $82 million from deferred operations funds to the project and, in response, the OCTA Board of Directors directed its staff to re-engage in discussions with Caltrans related to the project. Specifically, staff was asked to return to the board with an alternative option for OCTA to proceed as the lead agency for the HOT lane alternative. The board also directed staff to begin developing policies that will be required for operations, management, and excess revenue use.
The author introduced AB 1459 to ensure no toll facility is constructed in Orange County without a two-thirds vote of the OCTA Board of Directors. The author asserts that "Caltrans does not have the right to leverage over one billion dollars in local money to build a project that was not approved by the residents of the county, and was not approved by the local transportation authority." AB 1459 is meant to address what the author characterizes as an overreach of power by Caltrans and to empower the local transportation agency to make the ultimate decision regarding which alternative gets built.
Opponents object to AB 1459 because they believe it undermines the flexibility of OCTA and Caltrans to find the best solutions to reduce traffic congestion in this highly impacted transportation corridor.
Committee concerns: The current process is not broken and does not need to be fixed. The situation in Orange County is playing out just as it should, with appropriate checks and balances in place. Caltrans, with which the Legislature has vested broad authorities and powers and full possession of the state highway system, is the lead agency on the I-405 improvement project. In its estimation, the HOT lane is the superior alternative for longer-term, more sustainable congestion relief in the corridor; hence it identified it as its preferred alternative. In fact, Caltrans is not alone in this estimation. In 2012, OCTA staff recommended to the Board of Directors that OCTA that they adopt the HOT lane alternative as the recommended preferred alternative for the project.
The OCTA Board of Directors, weighing the pros and cons of the various project alternatives as well as the public opinion on the project, as is appropriate, voted first to reject the HOT lane alternative then later voted to re-engage with Caltrans in considering the HOT lane alternative. Clearly the board, in its many deliberations and votes, is striving to balance residents' concerns with critical transportation needs.
The bottom line is this: if these two agencies do not cooperate with one another, no project will get built. OCTA cannot build on the state highway system without a cooperative agreement with Caltrans and Caltrans cannot practically build the HOT lane alternative without OCTA's cooperation related to, for example, property acquisition, project financing, and operations. Contrary to the author's fears, OCTA will, in reality, have a say on which project alternative gets built. Subjecting its board to an arbitrary two-thirds vote requirement will harm the process, not fix it.
Double-referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee should it pass out of this committee.
Previous legislation: AB 2036 (Mansoor) of 2014, would have required approval by a two-thirds vote of the people within Orange County to authorize a toll road in that county. AB 2036 failed passage in this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
Automobile Club of Southern California
HNTB
Orange County Business Council
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Analysis Prepared by: Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
