Require that the fees charged to private companies by Caltrans for issuing encroachment permits cover, but do not exceed, the total cost of providing this service.
Rationale
Caltrans issues encroachment permits to government agencies and private companies for construction and nontransportation activities within the state highway system's right-of-way. State law allows the department to charge private companies for these permits, provided the total fees collected do not exceed the cost of reviewing permit applications from private companies. However, the encroachment permitting fees Caltrans collects cover only about two-thirds of the cost of reviewing private-company permit applications. This has resulted in the state annually providing about $2.5 million worth of this service to private companies free of charge.
Because the fees charged do not equal the cost of issuing the permits, the State Highway Account (SHA) must cover the difference. If the fees more closely matched the costs, this SHA money could instead be used for other transportation purposes.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page A-49.
Joel Riphagen: 319-8360
Ask the voters to increase transportation funding stability by repealing the State Constitution's requirement that revenue from the sales tax on gasoline be used for transportation purposes.
Proposition 42, passed by voters in March 2002, directs revenue from the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes. The intent of the proposition was to increase transportation funding by more than $1 billion annually. Unfortunately, this revenue has proven to be unpredictable. Since 2003, Proposition 42 revenues for transportation have been partially or fully suspended, to reduce the General Fund's annual budget deficits. Future transfers are also uncertain for the same reason. This uncertainty makes long-term transportation planning difficult and could result in the state wasting time and money due to stopping and restarting projects. Repealing Proposition 42 would return some stability to transportation funding—although at a lower level—while partially addressing the General Fund's structural deficit. Our recommendation on the following page would increase transportation funding to compensate for repealing Proposition 42.
Please see our 2004-05 Analysis, pages A-29 through A-36.
Joel Riphagen: 319-8360
Increase the state excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to provide a stable funding source to replace Proposition 42 revenue and index the tax to prevent erosion of the tax's value over time.
A 1999 California Transportation Commission study identified over $100 billion in unfunded transportation needs over the following decade. Since that time, transportation funding needs have increased. From 1998-99 through 2004-05, vehicle-miles traveled in the state are projected to increase by more than 15 percent, while inflation-adjusted gas tax revenues decline by 8 percent.
Transportation projects have traditionally been funded by an excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. This tax is a logical transportation funding source because 1) drivers pay the tax in proportion to the amount of driving they do, and 2) the tax is a way to make drivers pay for some of the economic costs they impose on society, including congestion and pollution. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate to raise the gas tax to address transportation's unfunded needs. Furthermore, to prevent the future erosion of transportation funding relative to road use, we recommend that the gas tax be indexed to the California consumer price index.
Please see our 2004-05 Analysis, pages A-29 through A-36.
Joel Riphagen: 319-8360
Require a statewide transportation needs assessment every five years.
The first step in identifying a solution to a problem is identifying the scope of the problem. Yet, when it comes to transportation, there is currently no requirement that Caltrans or any other state entity assess and report on the state's overall transportation needs on a regular basis.
While Caltrans and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) must regularly update funding and scheduling documents, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, these documents provide no information about unfunded needs. Similarly, RTPAs are required to adopt 20-year long-range planning documents under both state and federal law, but these documents are not compiled to provide a view of the state's needs as a whole.
Please see California Travels: Financing Our Transportation, May 2000, page 54.
Dana Curry: 319-8320
Amend the State Constitution to permit the use of gas tax revenues for transit rolling stock.
The State Constitution (Article XIX) restricts the use of fuel tax revenues (gas and diesel taxes) to (1) construction, maintenance, and operation of roads and highways or (2) construction and maintenance of mass transit guideways and facilities (mainly rail tracks). Transit rolling stock (mainly railcars and buses) is the only type of transportation capital outlay that currently cannot use fuel tax revenues under Article XIX.
Modifying Article XIX to allow fuel tax revenues to be used for transit rolling stock would allow greater flexibility in the use of fuel tax revenues for the most cost-effective transportation projects.
Please see After the Transportation Blueprint: Developing and Funding an Efficient Transportation System, March 5, 1998, page 3.
Paul Steenhausen: 319-8324
| Acknowledgments
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. |
LAO Publications
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO's Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. |