CA Transportation Funding Proposal Does Not Yet Support Climate Policies

The California legislative session isn't quite over yet. Although the deadline for most bills passed in September, and the election has changed some local representation, there is still one more issue remaining in front of current legislators: transportation funding. The Transportation Special Session has until November 30 to pass a bill to fix what everyone seems to agree is a crisis.

Except that getting all the different factions to agree on a solution is not so easy. Senator Jim Beall, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, has been working to find agreement among senate and assembly colleagues on a way forward. “Everyone knows there is a deadline,” he says. “But the reality is we must bring forth a bill that can pass. I’m working hard to accomplish that.”

Senator Beall has proposed a bill, S.B.X1-1, that has something in it for everyone, but it has been a hard sell. The bill would raise gasoline and diesel taxes—as well as other license and registration fees—which means it needs a two-thirds majority to pass. That automatically brings opposition from Republican legislators, even though many California voters are clearly willing to tax themselves for transportation.

But what the money gets spent on is a crucial question. The bill would raise $72 billion per year for transportation, a significant increase in the state transportation budget. But would it align with other state policies, specifically on environmental and justice issues?

Josh Stark, writing at TransForm, says it doesn't.

“It’s a big proposal,” he writes,

The bill as currently proposed, writes Stark,

And, worse, the proposed bill would allocate much less than that to public transportation, which desperately needs funds and is crucial for meeting climate change goals.
“Only two sources for new public transportation funding are proposed,” writes Stark:

The bill does contain an increase in funding for biking and walking. The $80 to $150 million it would add to the Active Transportation Program would almost double the current size of the ATP. That's a huge plus—but the bill still shows an institutional blindness to the importance of decreasing car travel while increasing travel by less damaging modes. For example, the bill has no “Complete Streets” requirement to ensure its revenue is spent in alignment with these other goals.

Writes Stark:

In addition to all that, writes Stark, there are no equity provisions, a major oversight in a state that has worked so hard in the last few years to put its investments where they are most needed.

TransForm has been working with a coalition of groups to suggest changes to the current proposal, as outlined here.

While the legislature is officially on recess until the new session begins in December, current members are still working until the end of November, and if an agreement can be reached they will be called in to vote on the proposal.

If that doesn't happen, the entire effort will have to start all over again with the new session and new legislators taking office. But, as Senator Beall pointed out, time is of the essence.

“With President-elect Trump’s statements on increased federal infrastructure investments,” he states, “it is incumbent on California to pass a transportation bill to match federal funding that might be available.”