January 2007
California Travels: Financing Our Transportation
Introduction
In the past year, transportation has been a central issue in the
discussions on the condition of the state’s infrastructure. About
60 percent of Californians view traffic congestion as a major problem.
This dissatisfaction is probably because the state’s transportation
capacity has not kept pace with growth in population and travel demand.
Even with the funding provided by the Traffic Congestion Relief Act
(2000) and Proposition 42 (2002), many feel that the state’s
transportation system suffers from underinvestment. In November 2006,
voters approved two measures to increase the state’s investment in
transportation: Proposition 1A to enhance the reliability of certain
funds and Proposition 1B to provide a one-time infusion of $20 billion
in bond revenues for transportation.
These measures will help to improve the state’s transportation
infrastructure. Nonetheless, issues remain regarding how the state can
meet transportation demands on an ongoing basis. For instance, the
state’s highways and roads require increasing maintenance and
rehabilitation. Additionally, there are emerging issues, such as goods
movement and transportation security, which the state is just beginning
to address.
What is being done to address these problems? How should the state
ensure Proposition 1B funds effectively address congestion problems and
provide mobility to facilitate the state’s growing economy? What other
fund sources are available for transportation? How are these funds
distributed? This publication seeks to answer these and other related
questions in an effort to help those interested in finding solutions to
our transportation challenges.
Contents
Traveling
in California: Trends and Mobility
Transportation Revenues and
Expenditures
The Transportation System: How
Decisions Are Made
Issues for Legislative Consideration
Acronyms and Definitions
Traveling in California: Trends and Mobility
Travel Increasing Steadily…
- Demand for Highway Travel
Outpaced Population Growth. From 1990 to 2003,
California’s population increased by almost 21 percent.
Meanwhile, travel on the state highway system as measured by
vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) increased by 26 percent.
- Population Growth
Concentrated in Inland Areas. Population growth has
been uneven throughout the state. Between 1990 and 2003,
population grew most in the following regions: Sacramento
(50 percent), Bakersfield (47 percent), and Riverside-San
Bernardino (37 percent).
- Inland California Also Sees
Largest Gains in Total Driving. Beyond the state
highway system, demand for travel on local roads also
increased between 1990 and 2003 with the largest gains in
noncoastal regions. The regions with the largest increases
between 1990 and 2003 included: Fresno (61 percent),
Bakersfield (51 percent), and Riverside-San Bernardino
(45 percent).
… But Only Marginal Growth in State Highway Capacity
- Highway Lane-Miles
Increased Minimally. Between 1990 and 2003, highway
lane-miles only increased by about 3 percent. Today,
California has about 50,500 lane-miles of highways,
maintained and operated by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). An additional 327,000 miles of
local roads are maintained and operated by local cities and
counties.
- Growth in Highway Capacity
Uneven Across State. The most significant expansion
in highway capacity over this period occurred in Orange, Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties, and the Bay Area. Capacity
increases were much less noticeable (or even nonexistent) in
other parts of the state.
- Carpool Lane-Miles
Increased Considerably. In 2000, the state highway
system included 925 miles of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes. As of 2005, California’s highway system included
1,268 miles of HOV lanes, a 37 percent increase. In most
cases, use of HOV lanes is restricted to vehicles with two
or more occupants in order to encourage carpooling. In some
cases, three or more occupants are required for vehicles
using HOV lanes.
- Toll Roads Remain a Small
Fraction of Highway System Capacity. There are about
120 miles of tolled transportation facilities in California.
This includes eight toll bridges in the Bay Area (seven are
state owned) and about 85 miles of toll roads in San Diego
and Orange Counties. Some of these facilities offer variable
tolls which set toll prices by level of congestion and time
of day.
California’s Roads More Crowded Than Other States
|
Rank
(2003) |
Urban
Area |
Miles
Driven Per Highway Lane-Mile |
|
1 |
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana, CA |
23,248 |
|
2 |
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA |
21,429 |
|
3 |
San Francisco-Oakland, CA |
20,242 |
|
4 |
Chicago, IL-IN |
19,516 |
|
5 |
San Diego, CA |
19,460 |
|
6 |
Sacramento, CA |
19,303 |
|
7 |
Atlanta, GA |
19,077 |
|
8 |
Miami, FL |
19,057 |
|
9 |
Houston, TX |
18,970 |
|
10 |
Oxnard-Ventura, CA |
18,873 |
|
|
- Urban Roads Are Heavily
Used. California regions lead the nation with the
most crowded roads, measured in terms of the number of miles
driven on each lane-mile of highway. Los Angeles tops the
list, with Riverside-San Bernardino and San
Francisco-Oakland placing second and third.
- Trends of Road Usage in
Urban Areas. While Los Angeles has the nation’s most
crowded roads, other California regions are catching up.
Between 1990 and 2003, miles driven per highway lane-mile
increased considerably in Sacramento (35 percent),
Riverside-San Bernardino (28 percent), and Oxnard-Ventura
(27 percent).
- Supply Has Not Kept Pace
With Demand. One reason why California’s roads are
more crowded than those in the rest of the country is that
the state’s transportation infrastructure has not expanded
enough to keep pace with growth in travel demand (measured
in VMT).
Congestion Paid for in Delay, Fuel, and Excess Emissions
- Hours of Delay Have Risen.
Because of the imbalance between road supply and
travel demand, delay on urban freeways has nearly doubled
from about 262,000 vehicle-hours per day in 1992 to 512,000
vehicle-hours per day in 2002.
- Increased Congestion.
In 2002, 43 percent of the state’s urban freeways
were congested. Congestion is defined as occurring when
vehicles are traveling at 35 miles per hour or less during
peak commute periods on a typical work day. This is up from
32 percent in 1992.
- Costs of Congestion.
Congestion on urban freeways costs Californians at least
$16 million per day (or $5.9 billion per year) in wasted
time and excess fuel.
- Environmental Impacts.
This delay also has negative environmental
consequences, resulting in an estimated 512 additional tons
of emissions per day.
Are Californians Really in Love With Their Cars?
- While the conventional wisdom is that Californians are
infatuated with their automobiles, some data suggest that
this is not the case.
- For instance, when compared to the average American,
Californians tend to drive fewer miles.
- Californians do have slightly more vehicles than the
average American.
Bus Riders Make Up the Bulk of Transit Ridership
2003-04
- Transit Ridership.
In 2003-04, almost 1.3 billion passenger trips were made on
various modes of transit, including bus, rail, and ferry.
- Most Transit Patrons Ride
the Bus. About 70 percent of these trips were on
buses. Most of the remaining trips (27 percent) were made on
commuter and urban (light) rail systems. Intercity rail,
paratransit, and ferry systems carried less than 3 percent
of all trips.
- Increasing Number of Trips
by Train. Since the late 1990s, the number of transit
trips made by rail has significantly increased. In 2003-04,
about 347 million trips were made by train compared to only
287 million in 1997-98.
- Bus Ridership Down.
In contrast to rail, the total number of annual bus trips in
California has actually declined slightly. In 2003-04,
881 million trips were made on buses, down from 889 million
in 1997-98.
- While Auto Travel Grows,
Transit Ridership Stagnates. While auto travel on
state highways has increased by 26 percent since 1990,
transit (bus and rail) ridership overall has experienced
almost no growth. Again, this is due to the slight drop in
bus trips (the mode representing the bulk of transit
ridership), offset by growth in other transit modes, such as
intercity, commuter, and urban rail which have experienced
considerable ridership growth.
Intercity Rail Ridership Grows, but So Do State’s Costs
- The state’s passenger rail system includes intercity
rail that serves trips between regions in California and to
other parts of the country.
- Currently, Amtrak operates all intercity rail service in
the state. The state funds service in three corridors:
-
Capitol Corridor serving San Jose, Oakland,
Davis, Sacramento, and Auburn.
-
Pacific Surfliner serving San Diego, Los Angeles,
Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.
-
San Joaquin serving Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno,
and Bakersfield.
- Between 1994-95 and 2004-05, ridership on the three
corridors has nearly doubled from 2.3 million to 4.4 million
annual passengers, an average annual rate of 6.6 percent.
The Capitol Corridor has experienced the largest increase in
ridership, which resulted mainly from the expansion of
service in the number of daily round-trip trains available
to riders.
- State costs (funded mainly by the Public Transportation
Account) to operate and maintain intercity service nearly
doubled over that period from $55 million to almost
$100 million annually, an average annual growth rate of
5.8 percent.
Urban and Commuter Rail Ridership Concentrated in Bay Area
- Urban and commuter rail are the components of the
state’s passenger rail system that primarily serve local and
regional transportation needs.
- These services are generally planned and administered by
local or regional transportation agencies, with funding
provided by a combination of local, state, and federal
sources.
- The bulk of urban and commuter rail ridership has
historically been in the Bay Area. However, most of the
recent growth in rail ridership has been outside of the Bay
Area.
- Ridership gains since the late 1990s on rail systems in
the Los Angeles (73 percent) and Sacramento-San Joaquin
(42 percent) regions are at least partially attributable to
major system expansions over that period.
Transportation Revenues and Expenditures
Local Funds Account for Almost One-Half of Ongoing Funds for
Transportation
2005-06
Transportation in California is funded by a variety of state, local,
and federal fund sources. Together, these revenues provide roughly
$20 billion a year for transportation purposes.
State Funds
-
Ongoing state funds
consist primarily of the state excise tax on gasoline and
diesel fuels, weight fees, as well as most of the state
sales tax on motor fuels.
-
Additional state funding
sources can include bond revenues and appropriations from
the General Fund.
-
In 2005-06, state revenues
provided about 30 percent ($6.1 billion) of total funds for
transportation.
Local Funds
-
Local funds for
transportation are derived from a variety of revenue
sources. These sources include (but are not limited to) a
statewide 0.25 percent tax on the sale of all goods and
services, additional (optional) local sales taxes, property
taxes, and transit fares.
-
In 2005-06, we estimate
that local funds constituted 47 percent ($9.4 billion) of
all revenues for transportation.
Federal Funds
-
These funds are generally
apportioned to California based on the state’s contribution
of federal excise taxes on motor fuels to the federal
Highway Trust Fund.
-
In 2005-06, California
received about $4.6 billion in federal transportation funds.
This accounted for 23 percent of total funding to the
state’s transportation system.
Price of Motor Fuel Includes Taxes for Transportation
- A large portion of transportation revenues in California
are collected at the pump, with Californians paying the
following taxes:
- 18 cents in state
tax for each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel
(generally referred to as the “gas” tax).
- 18.4 cents in federal
tax for each gallon of gasoline.
- 24.4 cents in federal
tax for each gallon of diesel fuel.
- 7.25 percent uniform
state and local
sales tax, plus optional local sales taxes for
transportation or other purposes varying by county. (The
statewide average sales tax level is approximately
7.9 percent once local optional taxes are considered.)
- The state also collects weight fees on commercial
vehicles (trucks) based on either the truck’s unladen weight
(for trucks lighter than 10,000 pounds) or its gross weight
(for trucks in excess of 10,000 pounds).
State Transportation Funding Comes Primarily From Fuel
Taxes. . .
2005-06
. . . And Goes Primarily for Highways
Key State Transportation Funding Accounts
State Highway Account (SHA)
- Revenues-state gas tax and weight fees.
- Expenditures-generally used for highway
maintenance and operation, highway rehabilitation and
reconstruction, and Caltrans administration. Can also be
used for capital improvements (highways and certain transit
facilities).
Transportation Investment Fund (TIF)
- Revenues-state sales tax on gasoline.
- Expenditures-provides funds directly for
local road improvements, as well as for capital projects
(highway and transit) selected by regionals and Caltrans in
the State Transportation Improvement Program. Also funds
traffic congestion relief projects and transit indirectly
through transfers to the TCRF and PTA (see below).
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF)
- Revenues-state sales tax on gasoline
(from TIF).
- Expenditures-provides funds for 141
statutorily specified transportation projects.
Public Transportation Account (PTA)
- Revenues-state sales tax on diesel, and a
portion of state sales tax on gasoline including:
- Sales tax on 9 cents per gallon of
gasoline (referred to as Proposition 111 revenue).
- Net revenue from 4.75 percent sales tax
on gasoline in excess of 0.25 percent sales tax on all other
goods, over and above the Proposition 111 revenues (referred
to as spillover).
- A portion of state gasoline sales tax
revenue from TIF.
- Expenditures-provides funds for transit
capital improvement, as well as operating assistance for
local transit systems. Also funds capital improvement and
ongoing support of the state’s intercity rail program. Funds
are restricted to expenditures for transit and planning
only.
|
Use of Gas Tax and Weight Fees Is Restricted
- The State Constitution (Article XIX) restricts how state
gas tax and weight fee revenues are spent. These monies may
only be used to plan, construct, maintain, and operate
public streets and highways, as well as to plan, construct,
and maintain transit/rail tracks and related facilities
(such as stations). These revenues
cannot be used to
operate transit systems or to purchase rolling stock
(trains, buses, or ferries).
- In 2005-06, these sources provided about $4.3 billion,
including $3.4 billion from the gas tax. A portion of gas
tax revenues-roughly $1.1 billion in 2005-06-is allocated to
cities and counties to plan, construct, and maintain local
streets and roads.
- The remaining $3.2 billion state gas tax and weight fee
revenues, along with federal transportation funds, finance
various state highway purposes. Together, these revenues
totaled about $6 billion in 2005-06. Current law sets
priorities for expending these funds as follows:
- Highway maintenance and operations, and local
assistance.
- Highway rehabilitation and safety projects in the
State Highway Operations and Protection Program.
- Capital improvements (including capacity expansion
projects such as additional highway lanes and new
transit facilities) in the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
Sales Tax on Motor Fuel Used for Broad Range of
Transportation Purposes
Statewide, there is a uniform sales tax rate of 7.25 percent on most
purchases. Five percent of that rate goes to the state, with the
remainder dedicated to local uses. (Due to additional local optional
taxes, the average sales tax rate in California is closer to
7.9 percent.)
Sales Tax on Gasoline
- Before 2002, most revenues generated from the sales tax
on gasoline were deposited into the General Fund and used
for various nontransportation purposes. Only a small share
of state gasoline sales tax revenues (spillover and
Proposition 111 revenues) was used for transit purposes.
- Since 2002, Proposition 42 constitutionally requires
that the portion of gasoline sales tax revenues that
previously went to the General Fund be transferred to
transportation purposes. The funds can be used for a broad
range of projects-highways, streets and roads, and transit
(including rolling stock). After 2007-08, 40 percent of
these funds will be used for STIP projects, 40 percent will
be used for local street and road improvements, and
20 percent will go for transit purposes. (Through 2007-08, a
portion of the annual Proposition 42 transfer first will be
used to fund projects in the Traffic Congestion Relief
Program.)
- Proposition 42 allowed the transfer to be suspended
under certain conditions. This occurred in 2003-04 and
2004-05. Proposition 1A, passed in November 2006, limits
the conditions under which suspensions may occur.
- In 2005-06, Proposition 42 provided almost $1.4 billion
for transportation. Another $67 million in gasoline sales
tax revenues went to the PTA for transit purposes. In total,
gasoline sales tax revenues accounted for 23 percent of
state funds for transportation in 2005-06.
Sales Tax on Diesel
- Most of the revenues from the state’s portion of the
sales tax on diesel fuel (4.75 percent rate) go to the PTA
for transit purposes. This revenue, about $271 million in
2005-06, accounts for about 4 percent of state funds for
transportation. Revenues from the remaining 0.25 percent
rate are retained in the General Fund.
Most Highway Expenditures Are for Capital
Projects
2005-06
Most state highway program expenditures are for capital improvement
on the state and local road system, as well as to fund planning and
engineering activities supporting these improvements.
- Capital improvements-one-third
of Caltrans’ highway expenditures, funds highway and bridge
rehabilitation, expansion, right-of-way acquisition, and
safety improvements.
- Capital project support-24 percent
of highway expenditures, includes project design,
engineering, and environmental review activities.
- Local assistance-19 percent
of highway expenditures, primarily federal funds, the state
passes through to local agencies, which finance highway and
roadway improvements, bridge replacement and seismic
retrofit, as well as transit and nonmotorized (bicycle and
pedestrian) facility enhancements.
Remaining funds (one-quarter) are for noncapital uses:
- Highway maintenance-about
19 percent of spending, funds roadway repairs, landscaping,
and snow and litter removal.
- Other support
activities make up the
remaining 5 percent of highway expenditures. These include
spending for traffic management centers, new technology
research, legal costs, costs related to scheduling and
tracking projects, as well as various Caltrans
administrative expenses.
State Transit Expenditures Primarily for Local Assistance
2005-06
Most state transit expenditures provide assistance to local and
regional agencies to make capital improvements to rail and bus equipment
and facilities, and to support transit operations.
- Transit capital
improvements account for over one-half of these
expenditures (55 percent). These expenditures are in the
form of project grants to local jurisdictions.
- State Transit Assistance
constitutes about 29 percent of total state
expenditures for transit. These funds are distributed by
formula statewide to transit operators to support the
operations and maintenance of transit systems, and for
capital acquisition purposes.
- Support for intercity
passenger rail service accounts for about 15 percent
of total state transit expenditures.
- Transit planning and
administrative support make up 1 percent of state
expenditures for transit purposes.
State Bond Funds Will Provide Substantial One-Time Infusion
to Transportation
|
|
|
Proposition 1B Uses of Bond Funds |
|
(In
Millions) |
|
|
Amount |
|
Congestion Reductions, Highway and Local Road Improvements |
$11,250 |
|
Reduce congestion on state
highways and major access routes |
$4,500 |
|
Increase highways, roads, and
transit capacity |
2,000 |
|
Improve local roads capacity,
safety, and operations |
2,000 |
|
Enhance State Route 99
capacity, safety, and operations |
1,000 |
|
Provide grants for locally
funded transportation projects |
1,000 |
|
Rehabilitate and improve
operation of highways and roads |
750 |
|
Transit |
$4,000 |
|
Improve local rail and transit
capital |
$3,600 |
|
Improve intercity rail capital |
400 |
|
Goods Movement and Air Quality |
$3,200 |
|
Improve movement of goods on
highways, rail, and in ports |
$2,000 |
|
Reduce emissions from goods
movement activities |
1,000 |
|
Retrofit and replace school
buses |
200 |
|
Safety and Security |
$1,475 |
|
Improve transit system
security and disaster response |
$1,000 |
|
Improve railroad crossing
safety |
250 |
|
Seismically retrofit local
bridges and overpasses |
125 |
|
Improve security and disaster
planning in ports, harbors, and ferry facilities |
100 |
|
Total |
$19,925 |
- In November 2006, voters approved Proposition 1B, the
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port
Security Bond Act of 2006. This act allows the state
to sell $20 billion in general obligation bonds to fund
transportation projects to relieve congestion, improve air
quality, and enhance the safety and security of the state’s
transportation system.
- These bond funds are one-time in nature. However, they
constitute a major infusion of state funds into the state’s
transportation system that will be spent over multiple
years.
About One-Half of Local Transportation Revenues
Comes From Sales Tax
2005-06
Collectively, local revenues generated an estimated $9.4 billion
from various sources in 2005-06 for transportation.
- Optional local sales taxes
represent an important source of local transportation
funding, generating approximately $3.1 billion annually.
These revenues fund improvements to highways, local streets
and roads, and transit systems.
- Quarter-percent tax on all
sales provided almost $1.4 billion in 2005-06. The
funds are generated under the Transportation Development Act
of 1971 and are deposited into the Local Transportation
Fund. They provide a major source of support for transit
operating assistance and capital projects.
- Transit fares
provided about $1.2 billion to local transit systems in
2005-06.
- Property tax and other
local funds collectively provided an estimated
$3.8 billion in 2005-06. These funds include property taxes,
developer fees, bond proceeds, as well as fines and
forfeitures. These funds are spent mainly on maintenance and
improvements of local streets and roads.
Optional Local Sales Taxes Contribute Significant
Transportation Funding
|
Agency |
Tax Rate (%) |
Year Established |
Year Expires |
Annual Revenue
(Millions) |
|
Permanent Measures |
|
|
|
|
BARTa |
0.5% |
1970 |
None |
$238 |
|
LACMTAb |
1.0 |
1981 and 1991 |
None |
1,300 |
|
San Mateo County |
0.5 |
1982 |
None |
61 |
|
Santa Clara VTAc |
0.5 |
1976 |
None |
150 |
|
Santa Cruz Metropolitan |
0.5 |
1979 |
None |
16 |
|
Subtotal |
|
|
|
($1,765) |
|
Fixed-Term
Measures |
|
|
|
|
Alameda |
0.5% |
2002 |
2022 |
$106 |
|
Contra Costa |
0.5 |
1989 |
2009 |
66 |
|
Fresno |
0.5 |
1987 |
2007 |
46 |
|
Imperial |
0.5 |
1990 |
2010 |
8 |
|
Marin |
0.5 |
2005 |
2025 |
20 |
|
Orange |
0.5 |
1991 |
2011 |
226 |
|
Riverside |
0.5 |
1989 |
2009 |
104 |
|
Sacramento |
0.5 |
1989 |
2009 |
93 |
|
San Bernardino |
0.5 |
1990 |
2010 |
104 |
|
San Diego |
0.5 |
1988 |
2008 |
213 |
|
San Francisco |
0.5 |
2004 |
2034 |
66 |
|
San Joaquin |
0.5 |
1991 |
2011 |
38 |
|
San Mateo |
0.5 |
1989 |
2009 |
61 |
|
Santa Barbara |
0.5 |
1990 |
2010 |
29 |
|
Santa Clara |
0.5 |
2006 |
2036 |
150 |
|
Sonoma |
0.25 |
2005 |
2025 |
23 |
|
Subtotal |
|
|
|
($1,353) |
|
Total |
|
|
|
$3,118 |
|
|
|
a
Bay Area Rapid Transit. |
|
b
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. |
|
c
Valley Transportation Authority. |
|
|
- History of Local Optional
Sales Taxes. Optional local sales taxes for
transportation originated in 1970, when the Legislature
authorized several counties served by the BART District to
impose a regional sales tax. Since 1987, state law has
authorized counties to impose special sales taxes for
transportation purposes, subject to voter approval.
Currently, a two-thirds vote is required for approval of any
local optional sales tax for transportation purposes.
- Current Use. In most
cases, counties proposing to impose local option sales taxes
must provide voters with an expenditure plan that specifies
how the funds would be used. As of 2006, 17 counties have
optional local sales taxes for transportation. (Starting in
early 2007, two additional counties-Madera and Tulare-will
levy a local sales tax for transportation.)
Fares and Local Funds Comprise the Bulk of
Transit Revenues
2003-04
(In Millions)
- Transit services are funded by a combination of
passenger fares and local, state, and federal funds.
- For the state’s largest transit operators, local funds
(such as local sales tax and property taxes) tend to provide
the largest source of revenues. For 2003-04, VTA reported
the highest proportion of total revenues met through local
funds (76 percent). At the low end, BART reported that local
funds constitute 53 percent of total revenues.
- Passenger fares also provide an important source of
revenues for operators. For instance, passenger fares made
up 47 percent of BART’s revenues in 2003-04. However,
passenger fares represented a much smaller proportion
(10 percent) of total revenues for VTA.
- The proportion of total revenues from state and federal
funds varied among transit operators. These revenues are
estimated to range from 0.2 percent of BART’s total revenues
to 18 percent of revenues for AC Transit.
Federal Transportation Act and Its Impact on California
|
|
|
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) |
|
Major Provisions |
|
General: |
|
Maintains
overall structure of previous transportation act
(TEA-21), but increases emphasis on safety. |
|
Continues
TEA-21’s flexibility allowing up to 50 percent of
most program formula funds to be redirected. |
|
Funding Nationwide: |
|
Provides 42
percent increase in average annual funding over
TEA-21. Authorization of $241 billion for fiscal
years 2005 through 2009 includes $190 billion for
highways, $45 billion for transit, and $5.7 billion
for safety enhancements. |
|
Earmarks over
$26 billion worth of congressionally specified
projects, including $14.8 billion for High Priority
Projects and $1.8 billion for Projects of National
and Regional Significance. |
|
Highways: |
|
Guarantees
“donor states” a minimum of 90.5 percent return on
state fuel tax contributions in 2005 and 2006, 91.5
percent in 2007, and 92 percent in 2008 and 2009. |
|
Provides
incentives for private sector participation in
construction of major transportation facilities. |
|
Pilots
include: federal delegation of environmental review
responsibilities to states and toll programs on
interstate highways. |
|
Transit: |
|
Most
discretionary funds remain available for competitive
project applications. |
|
Provides
capital funding for smaller transit projects
requiring less than $75 million in federal funds. |
|
|
Federal Transportation Act Provides Funding Through 2009
|
|
|
Authorized Funding for California |
|
(In Billions) |
|
|
Formula |
Earmarks |
Totals |
|
Highway |
$15.4 |
$2.4 |
$17.8 |
|
Transit |
3.9 |
1.3 |
5.2 |
|
Safety |
0.4 |
— |
0.4 |
|
Totals |
$19.7 |
$3.7 |
$23.4 |
|
|
- Source of Federal Funds.
The federal government levies a fuel excise tax-18.4
cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of
diesel. These revenues are deposited in the federal Highway
Trust Fund-the primary account for federal transportation
spending. Annually, California receives a share of these
funds via the federal transportation program (SAFETEA-LU),
which authorizes $241 billion to be invested in highways,
transit, and transportation safety projects nationwide from
2005 through 2009.
- Funding to State.
The federal act authorizes $23.4 billion for California
through 2009, including about $18 billion for highways, $5
billion for transit, and $452 million for safety
improvements. Roughly 15 percent of this funding ($3.7
billion) is earmarked for specific projects. For 2005-06,
federal funds provided about $4.6 billion for California’s
transportation system.
The Transportation System: How Decisions Are Made
|
|
|
The Key
Players: Who Decides What Gets Built and When? |
|
State |
|
Legislature |
·
Sets overall transportation policies, including
establishing revenue sources and expenditure
priorities.
·
Appropriates lump sum for capital improvements
through annual budget and provides oversight on
implementation of the state transportation program.
·
In general, delegates the authority to
select specific projects to Caltrans, regional and
local agencies, as well as CTC.
·
Occasionally designates transportation
projects statutorily. In 2000, selected 141 projects
to be funded through the Traffic Congestion Relief
Program. |
|
Department of Transportation (Caltrans): |
·
Implements the state transportation
program in general through 12 districts and
headquarters in Sacramento.
·
Owns, operates, maintains, and repairs
the state highway system.
·
Plans and designs capital improvement
projects on the state highway system.
·
Selects projects for the interregional
portion of the five-year State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
·
In 2006-07, 22,352 authorized
positions in department. |
|
California Transportation Commission (CTC) |
·
Consists of nine members appointed by
the Governor.
·
Recommends policy and funding
priorities to the Legislature.
·
Adopts estimates (prepared by Caltrans)
of available transportation funds for capital
projects.
·
Reviews and adopts STIP and State
Highway Operation and Protection Program to ensure
compliance with statutory guidelines.
·
Allocates state and federal funds to
projects nominated by Caltrans and regional
agencies.
·
Provides oversight on Caltrans and
local project delivery. |
|
Regional |
|
Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) |
·
Currently, there are 48 RTPAs
statewide.
·
Formed by specific legislation. These
RTPAs are usually in the form of council (or
association) of governments, and local
transportation commissions.
·
Administers state funds and allocates
federal and local funds to projects.
·
Selects projects for the regional
portion of the STIP. |
|
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) |
·
Currently, there are 17 MPOs in
California.
·
Federally required planning bodies;
typically the same as an urban region’s RTPA.
·
Prepares the 20-year Regional
Transportation Plan and selects projects.
·
The Governor designates an MPO in
every urbanized area with a population over 50,000. |
|
Other |
|
Other
Players |
·
County transportation authorities
develop expenditure plans for voter-approved local
option sales tax measures and administer funds.
·
Federal transportation agencies—such
as the Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration—oversee the use of
federal transportation funds.
·
Environmental agencies at the local,
state, and federal level review transportation
projects and issue permits to ensure transportation
improvements comply with environmental laws.
·
Cities and counties set land-use
policy and nominate transportation projects for
funding by the RTPA.
·
Transit agencies—such as the Bay Area
Rapid Transit and Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority—nominate projects for
funding and deliver transportation services and
improvements. |
|
|
Four Major Programs Guide State Capital
Spending
Currently, there are four major programs which guide state capital
spending for transportation in California:
- The State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds new construction
projects that add capacity to the transportation system.
These projects include capital improvements to highways,
streets and roads, and transit systems. Funding comes from a
mix of the state gas tax and sales tax on motor fuels, as
well as federal funds. This program is ongoing.
- The State Highway
Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds capital
projects to improve existing highways. Projects include
pavement rehabilitation (reconstruction), as well as
projects to enhance highway safety and operations. Funding
comes from state gas tax, truck weight fees, and federal
funds. This program is ongoing.
- The Traffic Congestion
Relief Program (TCRP) funds 141 capital projects
specified in the Traffic Congestion Relief Act of 2000 (AB
2928, Torlakson). The TCRP includes mainly highway and
transit projects located in urban areas. Funding comes
primarily from gasoline sales tax revenues provided each
year through 2007-08. However, TCRP will likely receive
revenues into the next decade from repayment of loans it
made to the General Fund in past years.
- Proposition 1B Bond Program
funds projects to relieve congestion, facilitate
goods movement, improve air quality, and enhance the safety
and security of the transportation system. Specific projects
have yet to be selected, but will include projects that add
capacity to highways and transit systems, improve major
trade infrastructure (including highways with high truck
volumes, ports, and freight rail lines), as well as enhance
the safety of existing transportation infrastructure. These
projects are to be funded by almost $20 billion in general
obligation bonds sold by the state.
Availability of Funds Determines What Gets Built and When in
the STIP
How Are State Transportation Dollars
Estimated?
-
Fund Estimate. Caltrans
estimates biennially all federal and state transportation
funds that would be available over a five-year period. These
funds include mainly revenues from state and federal excise
tax on motor fuels, sales tax on motor fuels, and truck
weight fees.
- The estimate projects
the amounts to be committed to various purposes over the
period. Priority is given to highway maintenance and
operations, local assistance, and SHOPP projects. Any
remaining funds would be available for STIP projects.
How Are STIP Funds Distributed?
How Are Regional Funds Programmed?