Category: Transportation Funding

CALCOG News: California State Budget and Federal Reauthorization Impacts on Transportation

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, July 11, 2011

Click here to join the California Association of Councils of Government

State Budget Snapshot

All it took to get a state budget was to assume that the state will see $4 billion more in revenue than we thought before. Easy. That equates to $2 billion in revenue for every week the Legislature did not get paid . . .

But CALCOG members will want to be aware of a few items.  First, the Gas Tax Swap deal remains in tact. Second, the governor used his line item veto authority to eliminate funding for 47.5 CalTrans positions to review impacts of local projects (PIDs) on the state highway system. He also eliminated nearly $150 M in Prop 1B appropriations to enhance local transit routes and feeder systems to high speed rail due to the lack of a comprehensive state rail plan. Also of interest to COGs with RHNA responsibility is the veto of funding for several HCD positions that review housing elements.

 

In addition, Counties were “disappointed but not disheartened” that Realignment lacks dedicated revenues and constitutional protections, and inversely, cities are fuming over the two-bill “extortion” scheme to take redevelopment revenues, which are arguably dedicated and constitutionally protected under Proposition 22.

Federal Reauthorization: Bridging a $300 Billion Gap

At a time when California is asking its MPOs and regional transportation planning agencies to do more, Congress may be planning on giving them less–significantly less. The story from Transportation Nation is that funding expectations are spiraling downward. Under the proposal unveiled by House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Mica, funding for road and transit investment will be reduced by 35 percent.  See the summary or full outline.  Transportation for America has a concise summary and analysis here. In February, the Administration proposed $556 Billion investment plan over 6 years.  The Mica proposal is for $230 billion. Transportation Issues Dailyhas posted a list (developed by Democrats) that estimates losses on a state by state basis that projects a $7.2 billion loss for California. There is a Committee hearing on July 12, but no language.

 

So far, besides typical partisian criticism, much of the immediate reaction has balanced some praise for some of the streamlining with very significant concerns about funding levels. Transportation Issues Daily has summarized several key reactions here, including a somewhat surprising response from the US Chamber of Commerce arguing for more funding. For more reactions, substantive and trivial, you can search Twitter under the #hashtag: “Micabill” (for those unfamilar with the term, you can Google “hashtag;” for those unfamiliar with Google, get help!).

 

So what does this mean? Will there be a bill before Sept 30, the day in which the current authorization expires? Who knows? The DC Streetblog reports that consideration of any bill before the August recess is unlikely (its not strategic to vote on spending bill before resolution of the debt service issue).  But the National League of Cities reports that Congress is poised to take on the issue.  Hmmmm.

 

Meanwhile, Senator Boxer has proposed a two year, $109 Billion reauthorization at current funding levels (plus inflation) and claims it will save 600,000 jobs. A good explanation of both proposals can be found at the AASHTO Journal.

 

The only thing that seems certain is that the uncertainty related to these revenue streams will remain for the short term future, which has its own consequences in terms of planning and project delivery.

 

categories California Policy, Federal Policy, Local Government, Metropolitan Planning, NewsFlash, State Policy, Transportation Funding

Policy in Motion’s Initial Thoughts on House Transportation Reauthorization Proposal

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, July 8, 2011

On September 30, 2009 I was teaching a class of undergraduate civil engineering and transportation planning students at UC Davis about the evolution of the federal transportation reauthorization — particularly timely as on the day the current SAFETEA-LU bill expired.  A few months prior on my first day interning as a transportation policy analyst in Washington D.C., then Chairman Oberstar of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I), proposed language for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 – a 700+ page document stating that it would “transform federal surface transportation to a performance-based framework to reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation’s highways, address the mobility and access needs of people and goods, improve the condition, performance, and connectivity of the United States intermodal surface transportation system, provide transportation choices for commuters and travelers, promote environmental sustainability, public health, and the livability of communities, support robust investment in surface transportation, and for other purposes.”

So here we are today – 646 days later — with another House T&I transportation reauthorization proposal described as a “multi-modal initiative” under Chairman Mica which “streamlines and reforms federal programs, expedites the project approval process, maximizes leveraging of limited resources, provides flexibility for states, and ensures long-term funding stability for job-creating transportation programs.”

However, if you ask anyone else paying attention what the proposal will likely achieve you will probably get a different answer.

The $230 billion proposal represents a 19.5% cut from the $286 billion from SAFETEA-LU (not accounting for the impact of inflation), with the “multi-modal initiative” in this proposal including:

  • Vague performance measurements for highways, transit, and maintenance/state of good repair
  • Major cuts to bicycle, pedestrian, transportation enhancements, and operational Amtrak funds
  • Continues split of 20% for transit and 80% for highways
  • No longer requires states to spend highway funding on non-highway activities
  • No leadership for a federal infrastructure bank

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, responded to the Chairman’s proposal on state flexibility, transit funding and streamlining project delivery outlining that a bill this small would need to be constrained to three key goals:

  • Maintaining our national highway and bridge system, which is quickly approaching its mid-life crisis;
  • Providing more options such as public transportation, vanpools and safer streets for bicyclists and pedestrians;
  • Promoting accountability through meaningful performance measures and a more strategic approach to transportation planning.

My overall take is that the proposal outline carries a mood of “making the most out of our scarce resources” — rather than providing for innovation and leadership.  I mean, really, nearly two years later and this is the best we can come up with guys?

categories Federal Policy, NewsFlash, Transportation Funding, US DOT

US DOT: Secretary LaHood Announces $527 Million in Funding for New Round of TIGER Grants

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, July 6, 2011

DOT 76-11
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Secretary LaHood Announces $527 Million in Funding for New Round of Popular TIGER Grant Program
Competitively Chosen Projects Will Create Jobs, Lay Foundation for Growth

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that $527 million will be available for a third round of the highly successful TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) competitive grant program, which funds innovative transportation projects that will create jobs and have a significant impact on the nation, a region or a metropolitan area.

“Through the TIGER program, we can build transportation projects that are critical to America’s economic success and help complete those that might not move forward without this infusion of funding,” said Secretary LaHood. “This competition empowers local communities to create jobs and build the transportation networks they need in order to win the future.”

In the FY11 budget President Obama signed in April, $527 million was directed to the Department of Transportation for critical investments in the nation’s transportation infrastructure. States, cities, local governments, and other partnerships and groups will have until this fall to prepare their applications for the popular TIGER program, which has funded high-impact projects including roads, bridges, freight rail, transit buses and streetcars, ports, and bicycle and pedestrian paths.

The previous two rounds of the TIGER grant program provided $2.1 billion to 126 transportation projects in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Demand for the program has been overwhelming, and during the previous two rounds, the Department of Transportation received more than 2,500 applications requesting more than $79 billion for transportation projects across the country.

Projects will be selected based on their ability to contribute to the long-term economic competitiveness of the nation, improve the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, improve energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and improve the quality of living and working environments of communities through increased transportation choices and connections. The Department will also focus on projects that are expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and spur rapid increases in economic activity.

For more information, please visit http://www.dot.gov/tiger/.

categories Transportation Funding, US DOT

July 3 Update: CA 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, July 5, 2011

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

2011 Legislative Summaries—Updated July 3, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)—Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

 

AB 343 (Atkins) — Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

 

AB 345 (Atkins) – Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

 

AB 441 (Monning)–Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

 

AB 539 (Williams) – Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

 

AB 650 (Blumenfield) – Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

 

AB 676 (Torres)–Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

 

AB 710 (Skinner) –Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.

 

AB 819 (Wieckowski) –Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

 

AB 931 (Dickinson) –CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

 

AB 995 (Cedillo) – OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

 

AB 1285 (Fuentes) — Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

 

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

 

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local Govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

 

 

SB 132 (Lowenthal) — School sittings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

 

SB 214 (Wolk) – Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

 

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

 

SB 450 (Lowenthal) – Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

 

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals.

 

SB 535 (De Leon) — California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.

 

SB 907 (Evans and Perez)–.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..

 

categories California Policy, Public Transit, Transportation Funding

June 19 Update: CA 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, June 19, 2011

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

2011 Legislative Summaries—Updated June 18, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)—Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

 

AB 343 (Atkins) — Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

 

AB 345 (Atkins) – Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

 

AB 441 (Monning)–Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

 

AB 539 (Williams) – Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

 

AB 650 (Blumenfield) – Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

 

AB 676 (Torres)–Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

 

AB 710 (Skinner) –Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.

 

AB 819 (Wieckowski) –Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

 

AB 931 (Dickinson) –CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

 

AB 995 (Cedillo) – OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

 

AB 1285 (Fuentes) — Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

 

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

 

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local Govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

 

 

SB 132 (Lowenthal) — School sittings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

 

SB 214 (Wolk) – Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

 

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

 

SB 450 (Lowenthal) – Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

 

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals.

 

SB 535 (De Leon) — California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.

 

SB 907 (Evans and Perez)–.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..

 

categories California Policy, GHG Reduction, Local Government, Metropolitan Planning, NewsFlash, Transportation Funding

June 12 Update: CA 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, June 12, 2011

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

2011 Legislative Summaries—Updated June 12, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)—Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

 

AB 343 (Atkins) — Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

 

AB 345 (Atkins) – Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

 

AB 441 (Monning)–Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

 

AB 539 (Williams) – Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

 

AB 650 (Blumenfield) – Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

 

AB 676 (Torres)–Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

 

AB 710 (Skinner) –Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.

 

AB 819 (Wieckowski) –Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

 

AB 931 (Dickinson) –CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

 

AB 995 (Cedillo) – OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

 

AB 1285 (Fuentes) — Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

 

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

 

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local Govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

 

 

SB 132 (Lowenthal) — School sittings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

 

SB 214 (Wolk) – Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

 

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

 

SB 450 (Lowenthal) – Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

 

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals.

 

SB 535 (De Leon) — California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.

 

SB 907 (Evans and Perez)–.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..

 

categories California Policy, GHG Reduction, Local Government, State Policy, Transportation Funding

June 5 Update: CA 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview

comments Comments (1)
By Lauren Michele, June 6, 2011

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

2011 Legislative Summaries—Updated June 5, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)—Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

 

to committee.  Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on

GOV. & F.

AB 343 (Atkins) — Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

 

AB 345 (Atkins) – Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

 

AB 441 (Monning)–Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

 

 

AB 539 (Williams) – Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

 

AB 650 (Blumenfield) – Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

 

AB 676 (Torres)–Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

 

AB 710 (Skinner) –Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.

 

AB 819 (Wieckowski) –Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

 

AB 931 (Dickinson) –CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

 

AB 995 (Cedillo) – OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

 

AB 1285 (Fuentes) — Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

 

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

 

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local Govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

 

 

SB 132 (Lowenthal) — School sittings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

 

SB 214 (Wolk) – Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

 

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

 

SB 450 (Lowenthal) – Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

 

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals.

 

SB 535 (De Leon) — California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.

 

SB 907 (Evans and Perez)–.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..

 

categories California Policy, GHG Reduction, Local Government, Metropolitan Planning, Public Transit, Transportation Funding

DC Streetsblog: Senate Transportation Bill, MAP-21, Freezes Spending at Current Levels

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, May 27, 2011

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1 Comment
Senate Transportation Bill, MAP-21, Freezes Spending at Current Levels
by Tanya Snyder on May 25, 2011

Note: See follow-up post, “Boxer: Transpo Funding Will Rise in Senate Bill, Bike/Ped Will Be Preserved” for updates, including clarification that the new bill will fund transportation at current levels plus inflation and an expanded TIFIA program.

The Environment and Public Works Committee just released an outline of some core principles of its transportation reauthorization bill. In a statement, the top Republicans and Democrats of both the full committee and the Transportation Subcommittee – Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Max Baucus (D-MT) and David Vitter (R-LA) – said:

Sen. Barbara Boxer indicates the Senate transportation bill will hold spending to current levels, hints it will be a short-term bill. Photo: Bumpshack
It is no secret that the four of us represent very different political views, but we have found common ground in the belief that building highways, bridges, and transportation systems is an important responsibility of the federal government, in cooperation with state and local governments and the private sector.

They say their bill, called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21):

Funds programs at current levels to maintain and modernize our critical transportation infrastructure;
Eliminates earmarks;
Consolidates numerous programs to focus resources on key national goals and reduce duplicative and wasteful programs;
Consolidates numerous programs into a more focused freight program that will improve the movement of goods;
Creates a new section called America Fast Forward, which strengthens the TIFIA program to stretch federal dollars further than they have been stretched before; and
Expedites project delivery without sacrificing the environment or the rights of people to be heard.
Nothing about an infrastructure bank, which is likely still a major sticking point. We’ll also be interested in hearing more about their decisions about transportation enhancements – those “beautification” projects the Republicans love to rail against, also known as bike and pedestrian infrastructure. We also wonder how much EPW has worked with the Banking and Commerce Committees so far to work out the language on transit and rail.

The joint statement indicates that Boxer may be softening her insistence on a six-year bill. They specifically say, “Our goal is to attain the optimum achievable authorization length depending on the resources available.” Sounds like a two-year bill to me, if they’re shooting to maintain current funding levels. And we already know that sounds like a two-year bill to Max Baucus, chair of EPW’s Transportation Subcommittee and head of the Finance Committee, which the four senators say they’re collaborating with to explore options for the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund without increasing the deficit – i.e., without transfers from the general fund.

We’re still not expecting to see a completed bill for a little while… the initial Memorial Day target has been pushed back to “sometime in June.”

categories Federal Policy, Transportation Funding

May 22 Update: CA 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, May 23, 2011

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

2011 Legislative Summaries—Updated May 22th, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)—Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

AB 343 (Atkins) — Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

AB 345 (Atkins) – Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

AB 441 (Monning)–Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

AB 539 (Williams) – Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

AB 650 (Blumenfield) – Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

AB 676 (Torres)–Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

AB 710 (Skinner) –Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.
  • Leg Info Bill Text (Amended April 25)
  • AB 710 Bill Analysis (Assembly Floor May 20)
  • Status: AB 710 Passed in Housing and Community Development on April 27, do pass committee on Local Govt, re-referred to committee on Appropriations. May 19, ordered to third reading.

AB 819 (Wieckowski) –Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

AB 931 (Dickinson) –CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

AB 995 (Cedillo) – OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

AB 1285 (Fuentes) — Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) — Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

SB 132 (Lowenthal) — School sittings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

SB 214 (Wolk) – Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

SB 450 (Lowenthal) – Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate with local agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide or regional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestion reduction goals.

SB 535 (De Leon) — California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.
  • Leg Info: Bill Text (Amended March 24)
  • SB 535 Bill Analysis (Senate Committee; May 16)
  • Status May 2: Do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. Hearing set for May 16. Placed on Senate Appropriations suspense file, hearing set for May 26th.

SB 907 (Evans and Perez) –.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..
  • SB 907 Leg Info Bill Text (Amended May 3 )
  • SB 907 Bill Analysis (Senate Committee; May 16)
  • Status: Do Pass Senate Committee on Govt and Finance. May 3: amended and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. Placed on Appropriations suspense file. Hearing set for May 26.

categories California Policy, Metropolitan Planning, NewsFlash, Public Transit, Transportation Funding

Streetsblog DC: TIGER III Is Grrrrrr-eat News for Transportation Agencies

comments Comments (0)
By Lauren Michele, April 21, 2011

TIGER III Is Grrrrrr-eat News for Transportation Agencies
by Tanya Snyder on April 21, 2011

News about an upcoming TIGER III award program is beginning to leak out. The USDOT isn’t planning to release a solicitation for proposals until early summer, but the language in the recently-passed budget bill for this year gives some clues as to what we can expect.

TIGER’s survival was one of the happiest surprises of the FY2011 budget. No money from the 2010 TIGER II allocation was rescinded, a pleasant surprise for TIGER fans. And the appropriation for 2011 is just 12 percent lower than the $600 million allocated last year. Part of what was cut, however, was $35 million to help jurisdictions with “planning, preparation or design” of projects. TIGER III will all be for capital investments. Like TIGER II, applicants will have to provide at least 20 percent of the funding, with no more than 80 percent coming from TIGER. A higher match is encouraged. Also like TIGER II, the money won’t be distributed purely on merit but also taking geographical diversity into account.

USDOT is required by statute to wait 60 days after the appropriation to put out the Notice of Funding Availability and then 120 days after that to start accepting applications. The budget was signed into law April 15, meaning we can expect a call for applications no sooner than mid-June, with the first day to actually apply being sometime in mid-October.

The program also might not be called “TIGER,” according to Ron Kirby, director of transportation planning for the Metropolitan Washington Council on Governments. In the budget, it’s referred to as “National Infrastructure Investments,” and when Kirby asked USDOT staff whether that’s what the program would be called, they said that was a decision that was going to be made “on high.”

More than 120 TIGER grants have gone to improving transportation options and land use all across the country – projects like the St. Paul Union Depot Multi-Modal Transportation Hub to bring Amtrak, intercity and local buses, light rail, taxis, and bikes together under one roof in the heart of downtown; the Philadelphia Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Network to complete a 128-mile network of bike/ped facilities, including primary commuter routes; the New Haven Downtown Crossing to convert Route 34 from a limited access highway to urban boulevards; the New Orleans Streetcar-Union Passenger Terminal/Loyola Loop to provide transportation options in the central business district and link to the Amtrak terminal; and the Tower 55 Multi-Modal Improvement to alleviate a major traffic and rail bottleneck and improve safety in Fort Worth, Texas by adding an additional rail track.

categories Federal Policy, NewsFlash, Transportation Funding

Panorama Theme by Themocracy