Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Okay.

The Assembly Transportation Committee is now called to order. Well, happy New Year, everyone. Good afternoon. Welcome to 2026. Welcome to the Assembly Transportation Committee. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be also watched livestream on the Assembly website.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings.

We will not accept behavior that is disruptive or behavior that incites or threatens violence. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will only allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition of the bill. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee. The primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee.

All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic. When called upon to simply state the name, affiliation and position. With that, we will begin our hearing. I'm looking to see if we have a quorum yet. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will start as an informational. No. What is it called?

I'm out of practice. Subcommitee, until we do have a quorum, I'll note that we have one bill on our proposed consent calendar. AB647 has been pulled from consent and will be discussed. I believe we have our. I do. We do have our. Item number one, AB 647 by Gonzalez. Here. Our author is here.

So you're happy to come forward. We will go with your testimony and then any support or opposition noted and then go to Members for discussion. And if we get some Members before then that allow for a quorum, I will interrupt briefly so that we can establish that quorum. With that to the author, the floor is yours.

How about now? There we go. Okay.

That was all right. Chair's buttons. Fault. My apologies. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members. Thank you. To Committee staff. Before you get going, I'm going to stop you because we have a quorum. That's right. Yay. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Our quorum is established. Before we proceed with the bills that we will be voting on, I do want to dispense with consent. We have one item on consent. Item number two. AB 1091. Gallagher. Is there a motion? I have a moved by Aguirre Curry and a second by Vice Chair Davies.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We have 10 votes for consent, but we'll hold the roll open for our additional Members to add on. Please. Noting to Members of the Committee who are not yet in this room, we only have two items to dispense with. So you should make haste to this Committee room. With that to the author, you.

The floor is now yours. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And thank you all to the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB647 is a cleanup Bill only to a Bill that I authored last year on AB630 and is sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and has received strong community support.

It clarifies that local agencies within LA County Alameda county can implement the new law. AB630 was passed and signed to law last year to allow LA County Alameda county to implement a pilot program allowing them to dispose of RVs valued at $4,000 or less than the vehicle was inoperable and was public safety or environmental hazard.

However, more clarity is needed just to ensure that local governments within these counties can use the pilot program as intended, abandoned inoperable RVs present significant public health and safety risk across California cities and counties.

Many of these RVs are in extreme disrepair, exposing occupants to hazardous living conditions and creating broader public health risks like improper waste disposal, sewage leaks, and fire hazards. AB647 will ensure that AB630 can be implemented and that the local agencies within these counties can have the tools they need to combat this issue.

With me to primary support, Andrea Ann Twee who represents Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members Andrew Antwih with Char Yoder, Antwee Schmelzerin Lang here today on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass. RVs can provide shelter, but they are often dilapidated in a condition that actually is a harm to public safety and they can pose also harms to environmental and public health.

Often, RVs are illegally rented from individuals who have engaged in predatory practices, often referred to as Van Lords. Because of this, these vehicles often get towed and then released. And there's a cycle that continues to happen.

We were very pleased and grateful to the author in this Committee for approving Assembly Bill 630 last year, which as released from the Senate Appropriations Committee, authorized a five year pilot program in the jurisdictions of LA and Alameda.

This Bill furthers the intent of the Bill that this Committee approves by clarifying exactly which local jurisdictions would have access to the powers under the Bill. And for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Move the Bill. I will take it. Vice Chair Davies did note the motion, so I will note that no, it's okay that Aguar, unless she wants to give it up to someone else. Aguar Curry is the second. All right. Thank you for the support testimony. Now we'll move on.

We do have an oppos opposition witness scheduled to testify.

At your ready. Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Committee Members. My name is Keely o' Brien and I'm a policy advocate with the Western center on Law and Poverty. We're here today in respectful but firm opposition to AB9647.

AB647 is a rushed and premature expansion of a program that went into effect only 11 days ago, before a single day of data has been collected and before we understand the impact on our most vulnerable neighbors. AB647 seeks to expand this program from two county entities to over 100 local and state agencies.

The Legislature authorized AB 630 as a limited two jurisdiction pilot. AB647 abandons that caution. It expands authority to every city, park district and University, including 88 separate cities in Los Angeles county and 14 in Alameda County.

It creates a confusing patchwork of conflicting policies in adjoining and overlapping jurisdictions, jeopardizing the only asset that many unhoused families possess. This dramatic expansion is reckless, given the significant changes the pilot allows.

It greatly increases the number of RVs that can be irreversibly destroyed because it increases the valuation threshold by 700% and makes some RVs eligible for immediate destruction. Instead, the existing pilot should be evaluated for unintended consequences of destroying people's home without offering any alternative shelter. Destroying RV homes doesn't solve homelessness.

And for many people living in RV homes, it will remove their last line of defense. In Los Angeles, 44% of unhoused women report domestic violence as the primary cause of their homelessness. For these survivors, a locked RV provides a vital sense of safety that a sidewalk cannot.

Black Californians make up 7% of our population, but 25% of those experiencing homelessness. Seniors and families with children are both significantly overrepresented in vehicular housing. People with disabilities often rely on RVs because temporary shelter options don't provide necessary and legally required accommodations. Taking away a person's only shelter option exposes them to violence, extreme weather, and premature deaths.

And we'll have to have you wrap up your comments.

As Sean Gary previously testified, an RV also provides basic human agency we take for granted. As Shawn told us, you still have the same number of people on the street, but now they are far more desperate. The demand for RV housing exists because affordable housing does not.

We cannot solve a housing crisis by destroying housing. We urge you to allow the existing pilot to be evaluated before considering any expansions or extensions.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to. And I forgot to note this on the support side. So we're going to do support first, then opposition. So for those who would like to add on their me too, for support of this Bill. So name, affiliation, and position, now would be an appropriate time to do so. All right.

For those who would like to do the same on the opposing side, now would be appropriate time to do so.

Oh, wait, let's get some mics on for them. There we go.

Good afternoon. My name is Marshall Arnwein. I'm with the ACA of California action and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving to Committee. Before I do, I do want to note that this is a technical amendment. There were some statements made in the opposition surrounding percent changes and things like that of that this Bill, it's doing two things. It's clarifying which agencies are allowed within those two counties as well as extending the sunset.

So those are the two items we do have a motion made by vice chair Davies and a second by Aguiar Curry, now bringing it to the Committee for any comments, questions, or concerns. Seeing none, I would like to thank the author for bringing this forward.

When this was talked about in our Committee, it was our understanding that it was including the agencies, all the jurisdictions within the greater jurisdictions of it will actually statewide. And then it was later clarified and had the support of this Committee. And so we know that everyone deserves access to sufficient and safe housing.

When this Bill came through our Committee, we supported it. Although there's been a change, we still support it. We appreciate the clarifying ways that you've done in terms of clarifying what the intent was out of last year. And so because I was supportive last year and supportive of the now technical amendments, I'll be supporting your Bill today.

I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the clarity and thank you Members and staff. We had worked on this Bill last year. We needed to just strengthen up a couple of pieces as you mentioned, as a, as it relates to local agencies.

And with 11 days in, we've seen a lot of outreach support within the task force, specifically to Los Angeles County. We're getting people out of inoperable RVs and into affordable housing and the mayor and City Council so many people are working on to solve this issue.

It's not going to be overnight, but we're giving him the tools for that success. And with that, thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB647, the motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wilson. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Davies. Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Ahrens. Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Aye. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Aye. Two.

Lackey, aye. Lowenthal. Macedo. Aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye.

All right, that Bill has 13 aye votes. We'll hold it open for Members to add on. We'll now move to item number three, which is AB 1421, my own Bill. And I'll be passing it over to Vice Chair Davies.

And I do ask that Members of the Committee who are not yet present, this is the last Bill, will hold the roll open for a moment and then we will close it and finish out the hearing with that. Vice Chair Davies, the floor is yours.

Thank you. All right. We're inviting the author to open on the Bill as well as asking for those speaking on support to be set and also those in opposition on the other side.

Whenever you're ready.

Members of the Transportation Committee. I am really excited to be able to present on this Bill. So this is AB 1241. It responds to a reality that we can no longer ignore. California's transportation funding system is becoming less stable, less equitable, and less sustainable as more drivers switch to fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles.

This Bill creates a transparent, research driven process to evaluate the advantages, disadvantages, and inevitable trade offs of a road user charge or mileage base funding system so the Legislature can make informed decisions. Today, drivers using the same roads often pay very different amounts for that use.

Low income and rural commuters who must drive farther and less efficient vehicles, pay more, while others contribute less despite similar roadway impacts. AB 1421 Ask a basic fair question. How do we ensure all motorists pay their fair share, no more, no less, while protecting affordability and privacy?

As you know, in 2025 our Committee held two informational hearings focused on the condition of the statewide multimodal transportation system and the long term transportation funding shortfalls facing the state, regions, cities, and counties and evaluating new and emerging funding tools used in California and other states.

In 2026, the Committee will convene an additional informational hearing specifically focused on California's road user charge pilot programs, lesson learned and unresolved policy questions. This work is being formed directly by Californians. In 2025, I had the opportunity to hold four regional transportation funding town halls in Fresno County, Solano County, Monterey County and Butte County.

We're going to continue our outreach this year with three additional town halls in San Diego County, San Bernardino county, and a statewide virtual town hall to ensure broad access and participation. These forums are designed to hear from commuters, workers, businesses, community groups, and local governments before any policy decisions are made.

It was really important that we took this conversation out of Sacramento and into our communities. It's too big to do otherwise. I want to be very clear, AB 1421 does not impose a new tax or a fee.

Moreover, I'm committed to amending AB 1421 to explicitly direct the research to help understand and avoid situations where motors could be double tax.

The conversation has been is how do we do a transition where somebody who has a gas powered vehicle and paying the most in taxes anywhere from 300 to $500 are not having it additionally burdened on him then while someone who has an EV is paying $120 or less, we don't want that to happen.

This has come up several times from both sides of aisle in this very Committee, so we are amending the Bill to address that. The research required under this Bill will examine how to ensure motorists are not charged twice for the same road usage and that both our future approach is both transparent and accountable.

AB 1421 is about getting the facts right. That's what we learned when we were on this town hall, that we didn't have enough information to make a decision. So we want to get the facts right. We want to engage Californians and we want to ensure our transportation funding system is equitable, fair and enduring for all motorists.

I respectfully ask for your support to move this important conversation forward. And I look forward to to my witness who are providing great expert testimony today, who is at all of our regional transportation town halls. Go ahead.

Thank you Assemblymember and good afternoon Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Kiana Valentine, on behalf of Transportation California, who is sponsoring this Bill Because California's structural transportation funding problem is no longer theoretical.

As the Assembly Member pointed out, vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient and the transition to zero emission vehicles is eroding our fundamental gas tax and diesel tax structure that supports all of our multimodal transportation improvements.

And that erosion is happening despite people still driving, doing wear and tear on the roads and our safety and mobility needs continue to grow throughout the entire state of California.

Also, as the Assembly Member pointed out, under our current funding system, some categories of drivers are paying far more than others, including rural drivers, super commuters, and low income drivers who often can't afford to transition to more fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles. This is not a future problem.

Erosion is happening now and it will compound year over year. According to the California Transportation Commission, the state cities and counties, our regional agencies, are projected to lose another $31 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

That $31 billion loss has already begun and the impact will be felt in every single one of your districts, all 80 Assembly districts and in the 40 Senate districts that comprise the state Legislature. It's going to show up as rougher roads, fewer bridges being maintained and repaired, and less funding for transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

AB 1421 is the right next step for California because even in the best case scenario whereby AB 1421 passes, we do this great research and the Legislature identifies a fair and equitable transition. We will not begin to collect revenue until 2030 or later. So it is going to take several years to figure this out and implement it.

And if we wait to start this work, we lock in deeper disinvestment for the next few years, potentially longer.

If you could finish up, please.

Absolutely. AP 1421 is about planning ahead instead of falling further behind and protecting California's multimodal transportation system before the funding cliff gets worse. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Thank you very much. We're going to ask we have any speakers on opposition to please come forward. All right then we're going to go into public testimony with me too. Those in support, please come forward.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities and strong support. Thank you.

Matt Cremens on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and proud chair of Transportation California and strong support.

Mark Neuberger, California State Association of Counties in support.

Good afternoon. James Throuactor, active with the California State Council of Laborers and strong support as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Gus Flores on behalf of United Contractors and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Hello, Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Hi. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of CALCOG and support.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors association. Support. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan on behalf of Supply Chain Federation in support.

Carlos Guterres here on behalf of the California Advanced Biofuels Alliance in support.

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Kayla On behalf of the California Fresh Fruit association in support.

Good afternoon. John Kendrick with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Valak Tang with the American Council of Engineering Companies of California in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Barb Goodrich Welk with Vulcan Materials Company. Strong support. Thank you.

Chris Lee on behalf of The Urban Counties of California in support.

Erik Turner with the California Construction Industrial Materials Association and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support.

On behalf of the California Asphalt Pavement Association in support.

Good afternoon. Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association, Western United Dairies, and the Mountain Counties Water Resources Association in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members. Ed Manning on behalf of Granite Construction and support.

Thank you. Do we have any public opposition? If so, please come forward. All right, seeing none. We're going to move to Members, questions and comments. We'll start with Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing this Bill forward, an issue that I've been following closely. I look forward to hearing more through our informational hearings as well as possibly the San Diego hearing that you might set up later this year.

I'm curious with the kind of ongoing both enactment and work that the technical Advisory Committee has been doing to date. How does 1421, I guess, add value to, I guess, what our expectations were out of that Committee to be able to bring us back the information as they've already commenced with some pilot programs.

What it looks like on first read, you're really essentially calling the moment and asking for a lot of that summary work to be done as you're defining it. But can you maybe elaborate A little bit more about what they've been doing. Maybe give us a preview of the hearing coming up.

What have they done to date and through these pilot programs, what do you hope 1421 is going to do to move this issue forward?

I'll actually hand that over to Ms. Valentine, who's been following that very closely.

Thank you. Great question. Assemblymember AB 1421 is certainly complementary to those pilot programs that have gone on in the state of California, which as authorized, looked at very specific aspects of how we might set up a road user charge system.

And this Bill would require the California Transportation Commission to bring that body of work together for more of a summary document and would offer you and the Legislature observations around trade offs if you were to make certain choices in moving forward. Okay.

So it is sort of an overlay, I guess, if you will, a summary document that helps you roadmap the future.

Got it. And I know that the Committee has been authorized through January 1, 2027. That also is consistent.

Assuming this timeline stays consistent through your Bill this year, do we anticipate that there's more work that needs to be done with that Committee or is it time to just call the moment and kind of conclude all these pilot programs and start to make decisions?

I believe it's time to call the moment. I mean, we are behind, as was noted, that even getting the information allows us to make a decision in 2030. And that is when we'll get the fullness of the loss of revenue.

And we're already seeing it not just in the fact that people are driving fuel efficient, vehicle driving less, but we're spending more.

I was having a conversation with a colleague earlier about a project that was needed in their community where rough roads, potholes is not able to be complete because have to focus on the wildfires, you have to focus on the flooding. So the cost to even maintain our existing infrastructure has gone up dramatically.

So we have to solve this problem. So we have to, you know, get from talking about it, to being about it.

Absolutely. Happy to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah. Just briefly, I wanted to thank Assemblyman Member, not Assemblyman, Assemblymember Wilson for willingness to accept the amendment to protect drivers from the risk of double taxation. Obviously I come from a rural district that people don't make a lot of money and they travel far out of necessity.

Yeah.

And they shouldn't be double banged or punished because they live in that kind of an environment. And certainly the electric vehicles are getting off and have been getting off tax free for quite some time and so it's time to bring some equity. So we appreciate your willingness and I'm comfortable supporting this measure because of the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Assembly Member Jackson.

Thank, thank you very much. Obviously thank you for this Bill. I'm one that believe we should have went further to actually get going on this. I am one of those districts who was scheduled for some much needed repairs on some freeways where more than half of my district commutes to other counties to be able to do it, so freeways are essential for us.

And the number of concerns we have when our, when we're bouncing along the freeway and how long is our tires are going to last to be able to do that is certainly so important.

So instead of getting repairs this year, we have to wait into 2027 to even have an opportunity to be able to deal with those repairs. And so we've got to do something. Accounts are running out of money to causing projects to be canceled and deferred to other times.

So looking forward to the conclusion of this so that we can really get to work because we can't afford to wait. Thank you.

Agreed. Thank you for those comments. I didn't want to call you out as the person I had that conversation with. So I'm glad you brought it up.

And I think that to the point to where we have, you know, our EV users, as you noted, we don't want to double tax those that are being most burdened by our transportation system who are carrying the burden of our transportation system and those with EVs are not.

But using the same system and putting a greater dent into it, so to speak, because of the weight of their vehicle not paying anything and it's on average $200.

And I will tell you, as much as we talk about affordability, I don't think an EV user having to pay $200 for the system that they're already using is going to break the bank, so to speak. And so you know, I was hoping through this we would had action on it.

But we did find that we did need more information and clarity and to have some of what we were learning in our regional town halls where we were looking at the alternative options and the impact that those options had on individual groups or ideas that we have around equity and ease of mechanism for how do you get the resources.

And so I'm glad that we're going to be able to have that information as a Legislature and be able to come up with the solution that we think is Best for California and for Californians.

Okay. Assembly Member Ransom.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I want to thank the chair for bringing this and I just really want to appreciate the focus on the inequities. I represent a super commuter district and I also represent lots of goods movement throughout our district and into neighboring and all actually across the world like coming out of our district.

And it is so important, important that we look at the fact that in the Central Valley there's a lot of poverty and people have to travel a long way.

And so I really appreciate the inequity focus and I really would love to see a lot of focus on the Central Valley and its connectivity to all of the other regions and how that works.

And I do think that as much as we appreciate the environmental improvements we get with the electric vehicles, we also have to keep in mind that there are impacts with the weight on those roads. And so we can't just look at, you know, that environmental clean air.

We also have to look at the impact on the roadways and really weigh apples to apples if we can. So I really appreciate this and I would love to host you in the Central Valley if it would help you improve the efforts of the outcomes and the outcomes. Thank you. Absolutely.

Any more comments, go ahead.

I would like to co author the Bill with you, if I can.

Absolutely.

Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you. So I just had a couple questions and you know, happy to if you would like to answer or a witness or whoever would like to answer these questions. You know, I think this is an important discussion and I really do appreciate the work that you're putting into this Bill.

I think one of my concerns, I guess at the end of this process is what happens obviously to those gas drivers.

Do you envision a world where we have a system that is basically a two tiered system of taxes, where you have basically maintaining the status quo for the gas tax, but then for zero emission vehicles, maybe adding a vehicle usage charge. Is that something that is still possible for the Legislature to do under this Bill?

And do you see that as a possible path forward?

So I'll note that this is a study to give us the information so we can make those type of decisions. Like when I think when I started this process of having this Bill and then having all of the town halls is I didn't want to come in with a preconceived notion of the outcome.

I really wanted it to come from the conversations. And so I would say that based on what I've heard so far, and I think so I'M being a little futuristic speculative here.

Not what's in the Bill and not what I think will actually happen because that's going to be determined by the folks in this room or sitting in this chairs, in these chairs at the time that we make the decision is that people who are currently paying the gas tax are not going to be paying more and people who are not paying into the.

And think about the gas taxes paying into the system, the transportation system. The people who are not paying in the transportation system will be paying into the transportation system. So it's about being fair and equitable amongst all. However, it's a user based system like however you use the transportation system, that's how it will be funded.

So I said when you say two tier that sounds like one below another. It could be that if you're a gas powered user, you're not paying a road user charge in that sense of the same as somebody who is doing EVs.

But it really is going to be up to us to determine it based on the information we receive. And I'll give an opportunity for Ms. Valentine to share as what she's seen and all of the, you know, she's been here longer technically than me working on this.

Thank you. I think if you look at other states in one of the informational hearings, the second informational hearing before this Committee suggests that that is a really good place to start for the state of California. Not a full repeal the gas tax and replace with the road user charge. One state is doing that.

That's the state of Hawaii. That's a lot easier to accomplish in a state like Hawaii. No driving across state lines and so on and so forth. Right. I also believe they have the same number of registered vehicles as the greater Sacramento area, so it's a much smaller challenge.

But the three other states that are actively either piloting, collecting revenue or moving forward are starting with zero emission vehicles. Leave the gas tax as it is. Gas powered vehicles pay that zero emission vehicles pay into a new system whether it's road user charge or something else.

So I think when we look to other states that's certainly a top line lesson learned that we have taken away from this process.

Appreciate that and thanks for that clarification too. I guess when I say two tier you're right. I don't mean to imply that one should pay more than the other. In fact, I think that's part of the problem with the status quo. Right.

And so I guess it's more of a comment on, to me it appears and I do look forward to the information coming out of this study, it appears that it will be easiest to sort of maintain the existing tax structure for gas powered vehicles. And it keeps you out of some of the pitfalls that might come from trying to apply a fully new system to those drivers.

That being said, I can tell you from experience and just conversations I've had in my district that I have a lot of constituents that drive gas powered vehicles that feel like they're shouldering the entire burden of the road infrastructure. And I think that's unfair. And I think most of my constituents think that's unfair.

So from that standpoint, certainly do appreciate a study of possible solutions for zero emission vehicles.

I think the last question I was going to ask, and I don't want to go on too long, but just, you know, I also want to make sure that any funding that comes from a new charge is actually funding that's protected and reserved for road infrastructure.

And I think that's one thing that this Legislature has struggled to do or has at least maybe had too many priorities for this pot of money. Right. And so I want to make sure that especially as someone that represents a district where a lot of people commute, we obviously have some great transit options as well.

But are there going to be efforts made to make sure that this money goes to road infrastructure?

Absolutely, 100%. Yeah, that's. I mean, it's really up to all of you, right? Eventually.

But as someone who has been doing this work now for the last year, working on this, that is something that people in the community have said that has been consistent at every single town hall that we've done is that people want to see whatever comes out to be as a part of transportation infrastructure and not necessarily transit.

People care about transit and they would hope that we'd find another mechanism to ensure that transit is taken care of. But when it comes to resources, as it relates to the use of the transportation system and that infrastructure, they want the resources to go to that.

And so you have my commitment that that will be what I push through. It's ultimately up to you all what comes out on the finish line, but we'll start going to transportation and the transportation system as it relates to infrastructure.

I appreciate that I am going to actually be laying off the Bill today, but I do want to just continue the conversation and appreciate the work you're doing. Thanks.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Members. Any other comments? All right, we're going to push it back to you to finish up.

Thank you. First, I want to say thank you to all of you who've provided comments over this last year about this particular topic topic and met with me, I appreciate it and hope that you see some of those conversations as a result in this Bill.

I also want to thank Transportation California and Kiana Valentine for their work, especially on these regional town halls, which are not easy to traverse the state, as most of you all know, who live in the far reaches of the state.

And I want to just end on this, noting all the different people that came to show support who normally don't agree on a lot of things. I had an opportunity to go to California League of Cities and talk to them.

And people from both sides of the aisle came and talked about this issue and saw the importance of it and made a priority, had the opportunity to go to our county association, CSAC and present for them. And the Subcommitee came where it was.

The most conservative set of counties were part of the Subcommitee who came and said, yes, this is important, I need you to address this and made it a priority for them.

People from all walks of life understand that housing is extremely important where you live, but how you get to all the different places is just as important to having a high quality of life. How you get to your doctor, how do you get to the park, how do you get to your work?

And this is what this Bill is about, ensuring that we have a transportation system that gets people where they need to go in a safe way and that infrastructure is there and that it looks like the fourth largest economy in the world. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote as we continue this work.

Assemblymember Wilson, do you mind if I make a quick comment? Absolutely, go ahead. I want to thank you so much and right on with your talking points. I've served many years with transportation and again, infrastructure is huge and making sure that we have the funding that we need.

And one thing I'd like to do is I'm going to hold off today, but I would love to be involved in the San Diego outreach because for me, it's all about what my voters want.

And so it'll give me a better option to be able to hear what you know, where they stand, what they would like to see. And then when it comes to the floor, then I feel a little bit better. But I want to say thank you for that. Appreciate it.

You're welcome.

All right, let's see here. We've got a motion from Assembly Papan and then we also have a second from Aguilar-Curry. Oh sorry, Ransom, not Papan. Okay, Ransom thank you very much. All right, Secretary, want to call the roll.

AB 1421. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, not voting. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Ahrens. Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Hart. Aye. Hoover. Hoover, not voting. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey.

Aye. Lackey, aye. Lowenthal. Macedo. Macedo. No. Papan. Papan, aye. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye.

Davies. You want to close this out real quick on the vote, tally? She's got a plane to catch. I get it.

4 to 12. 12 ayes. 1 no. And we have anyone else to. Or do we have everyone in here?

I think we still need to hold the roll open.

We'll have the roll open. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Davies. Safe travels. Alrighty.

That concludes our bill presentation. Now we will move through our items to ensure that members have the opportunity to add on. If you are a Member of this Committee and are not in the room, we are going to go through each one slowly. And you have until that last one. And reminder, there's only three votes.

You have until that last one to make your way to this room. And then we will finish and be done with that. We'll start with consent calendar, which is item number two. AB 1091. Madam Secretary.

[Roll call]

All right. That Item that has 15 votes will hold the roll open. Moving on to item number one. AB647. Madam Secretary.

[Roll call]

That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. I think we are at the same amount for item number three. AB 1421. Just confirming, madam Secretary. Confirmed. Okay. All right. We're going to wait a couple seconds.

Do we. Do we. Have we heard anything? All right.

Given that our absent Member is presenting himself, we will close the roll. And so item number, our consent calendar is 15 I votes. No. No votes. And so that is closed. Item number one, AB16,647 is also 15 ayes, no noes. Moving on to item number three. AB14 21 was 12 eyes and one no.

All the rest not voting. And so now that is closed. There being no further business of the Assembly Transportation Committee, our Committee is now adjourned.

[Unintelligible]