The PCL Insider: News From The Capitol

BOND MEASURES ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT - A PCL PERSPECTIVE 

Dear PCL Member:

California voters will face some incredibly important choices at the next election, including decisions on a number of bond measures that will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot.

PCL has officially endorsed Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006. Proposition 1C would provide funds for much needed affordable housing. It also contains provisions that could help counter the destructive patterns of urban sprawl that are having such a detrimental effect throughout California.

PCL has also endorsed Proposition 84, a bond measure placed on the ballot by voter initiative. Proposition 84 would provide money to help protect the watersheds and natural resource lands that are so important to all of us, and would provide park and recreation opportunities in our urban neighborhoods, as well.

There are several other proposed bond measures on the November ballot, and PCL has not taken an official position on any of them.  Probably the most significant, in terms of its potential impacts, is Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Act of 2006. This is the “largest” bond measure on the ballot, and would authorize borrowing in the amount of $19.9 billion.

PCL believes that California does need to make significant new investments in transportation infrastructure. In doing so, PCL thinks that a number of important principles should be followed:

- Road and highway expenditures should encourage smart growth and make cities more livable. They should be focused in existing urban areas, serving our existing urban populations, and should not be used be used to subsidize more rural development and suburban sprawl.

- We should significantly increase our expenditures for buses and rail systems, and for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and for other transportation systems that provide alternatives to the single-occupant automobile.

- Transportation expenditures that improve or increase capacity on roads and highways should be coupled with expenditures that ensure the permanent protection of the commercially productive agricultural lands and natural resource lands that are often adversely affected by highway projects.

- Where transportation expenditures paid for by the taxpayers directly subsidize businesses, a “beneficiary pays” principle should be applied to recapture taxpayer dollars through appropriate user fees.

- Every expenditure on a new road and highway project should be accompanied by an effective strategy and expenditure plan to make certain that the adverse air and water quality impacts of that project are completely and permanently offset.

The $19.9 Billion in expenditures authorized by Proposition 1B will be made in the following general categories:

$4.5 billion for a “Corridor Mobility Improvement Account” to provide “performance improvements on highly congested travel corridors.” This would include “major access routes to the state highway system” or “the local road system.” Improvements are fundable if they “expand capacity.”

$1 billion for “improvements to State Route 99," traversing 400 miles of the Central Valley. A project qualifies if it improves “capacity.”

$3.1 billion for the “California Ports Infrastructure, Security and Air Quality Improvement Account.” This money is to improve traffic capacity in the state’s ports.

$1 billion for the State Air Resources Board, to achieve emission reductions along California’s trade corridors.

$100,000,000 to increase port security.

$200,000,000 for school bus retrofit, to eliminating polluting school buses.

$2 billion for “projects in the state transportation improvement program," to augment funds otherwise available "from other sources.”

$4 billion dollars for “public transportation modernization improvement” including $400,000,000 reserved for intercity rail improvements.

$1 billion for the “State-Local Partnership Program Account,” to be allocated by the State Transportation Commission, as it chooses.

$1 billion for the “Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response Account.”

$125,000,000 for local bridge seismic retrofit.

$250,000,000 for highway-railroad crossing safety projects.

$750,000,000 for highway safety, rehabilitation and preservation, with $250,000,000 of this to go for stop signal synchronization.

$2 billion to a “Local Streets and Road Improvement, Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety Account.” In general, these moneys flow through to local transportation agencies.

These expenditures should be made consistent with the principles we advocate, but nothing in Proposition 1B requires that these principles be followed. Other than directing bond allocations to the general categories listed, Proposition 1B does not contain very many specific limitations on how the money will be spent. The $1 Billion to expand the capacity of Highway 99, for instance, could mean more sprawl onto the commercially productive agricultural lands of the Central Valley, and more air pollution affecting its poorest residents. Because there isn’t a specific commitment in the bond measure to the kind of principles we advocate in this letter, PCL has not taken a position on Proposition 1B.

If Proposition 1B passes, PCL will be working to make sure that the funds generated by this bond measure are spent in environmentally sound ways, consistent with the principles outlined in this letter. If Proposition 1B does not pass, PCL will be affirmatively proposing that the Legislature ask the voters to authorize a bond program and expenditure program that conforms to the principles we outline in this letter.

Please contact us with your own thoughts and recommendations. California simply must have an investment program for transportation that improves, instead of undermines, the natural environment that is the foundation not only of our quality of life, but of our economy, and the health and safety of the citizens and residents of this state.

Very truly yours,

John Van de Kamp, President  
PCL Board of Directors    

Gary A. Patton, Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League