Statewide Transportation Funding At Risk Your Name or Agency Date RTPA RCTF

March 2010 Transportation Tax Swap Revenues in Jeopardy Propositions 22 & 26 have potentially severe negative implications for existing transportation funding in California. Prop. 22 restricts the State from using gasoline excise taxes (Highway User Tax Account or HUTA) for general fund relief and bond debt service, an integral part of the March 2010 Transportation Tax Swap. Prop. 26 invalidates the 17.3-cent replacement excise tax enacted when the State eliminated the sales tax on gasoline (Prop. 42) under the Transportation Tax Swap. Unless the Legislature and Governor take immediate and comprehensive action, $2.5-$3.5 billion in annual transportation funding and 45,000-63,000 jobs will be lost. The 2010 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Update demonstrates that not only must the State act to save the existing bare bones transportation funding streams, there is a significant unfunded backlog on the local street and road system.

2010 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Update What is the condition of California’s system of local streets and roads? What will it cost to bring them up to a Best Management Practices (BMP) condition, which is most cost effective to maintain? What will it cost to maintain them in the BMP condition? Considering existing revenues, is there a funding shortfall? If so, what is it? What are the potential solutions policy makers can consider? What are the impacts to the local transportation network of different funding scenarios?

Local Streets & Roads are Huge Part of State Network 82% of California’s pavements are owned by cities and counties!

It’s Not Just Pavements … Sidewalks ADA ramps Curb & gutter Storm drains Lighting

Data Collection Total of 406 agencies –56 counties –350 cities Missing 130 agencies –Mostly small cities –No data –No resources 71% data rec’d 29% no data Data received 93% of centerline miles No Data 7% of centerline miles

Pavement Condition Index Failed Poor At Risk Good - Excellent

Statewide Average PCI = 66

Why is 68 Critical? 68 $2/sy $15-40/sy $40-70/sy $60-100/sy

Condition of City/County of BLANK Local Roads City/ County of ______ has an average PCI of _____. This is up/down from _____ in Other City/County specific details on condition of your local system.

Funding Sources Annual Funding FY 2006/07 & 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 onward State41.0%40.5%52.9% State - Prop 1B10.0%0% Federal with ARRA*10.8%35.9%10.4% Local38.1%23.6%36.8% * ARRA local share is assumed to be 40% of $1.6 billion.

Critical Revenues Gas Tax (Highway Users Tax Account or HUTA): Cities and Counties will receive approximately $1.629 billion FY –$1 billion in “old” HUTA –$629 million in “new” HUTA (Prop 42 replacement revenues under the Transportation Tax Swap) –City/County of _____ receives _____ of this amount.

What Happens If We Don’t Get More Funding? 68 (at risk) 48 (poor) PCI Backlog ($ billion) $37B $79B

Total 10 Year Shortfall ($B) Transportation Asset 10 Year Needs Existing Funding 10 Year Shortfall Pavements$ 67.6 $ 15.9 $ 51.7 Essential Components $ 32.1 $ 12.4 $ 19.7 Total shortfall $ cents/gal 53 cents/gallon!

Funding Shortfall for City/County of BLANK City/County of _____ has a funding shortfall of _____. City/County of _____ has a backlog of _____. This is up/down by ______ since Other city/county specific details on the financial needs of the system.

Summary Good News –Data received represents 97% of local system –Statewide average PCI = 66 Not so good news –PCI = 66 is at risk category & drops to 44 by 2033 with existing funding –Need to more than double existing funding to maintain transportation assets

Questions?