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

2. March 2010 Transportation Tax Swap Revenues in Jeopardy Proposition 26 has potentially severe negative implications for existing transportation funding in California and the Swap complicated Proposition 22 implementation. Prop. 22 restricts the State from using gasoline excise taxes (Highway User Tax Account or HUTA) for general fund relief and bond debt service, 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.

3. 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?

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

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

6. Data Collection 474 responses Covers 97% miles! 56 no responses –50 have pop n < 50,000 –47 have < 100 miles No responses 191 344 responses (64%)

7. Pavement Condition Index 0 100 70 50 25 Failed Poor At Risk Good - Excellent

8. Statewide Average PCI = 66

9. Why is 66 Critical? 66 $2- 4/sy $15-40/sy $40-70/sy $60- 100/sy

10. Condition of City of (BLANK) Local Roads City of ______ has an average PCI of _____. This is up/down from _____ in 2008. Other City specific details on condition of your local system.

11. Pavement Revenues* Revenues ($M)2008/092009/10Future % of total Federal** $ 167 $ 390$ 68 6% State $ 1,032 $ 819$ 69861% Local $ 458 $ 453$ 67433% Total $ 1,658 $ 1,663$ 1,140 100% * Based on 300 responses ** ARRA accounted for $343 million ($50 m in 2008/09, $293 m in 2009/10)

12. Critical Revenues Gas Tax (Highway Users Tax Account or HUTA): Cities and Counties will receive approximately $1.629 billion FY 2010-11. –$1 billion in “old” HUTA –$629 million in “new” HUTA (Prop 42 replacement revenues under the Transportation Tax Swap) –City of _____ receives _____ of this amount.

13. What Happens If We Don’t Get More Funding? 66 54 20102020 PCI Backlog ($ billion) $39B $63.6B

14. Existing Funding ($1.42B/year)

15. Funding Shortfall 2011-2020 ($ billions) ComponentNeedsFundingShortfall Pavements $ 70.5 $ 14.2$ 56.3 Essential Components $ 29.1 $ 6.8$ 22.3 Bridges $ 3.3 $ 3$ 0.3 Totals $ 102.9 $ 24$ 78.9 2008 Results$ 99.7$ 28.3$ 71.4 53 cents/gallon!

16. Funding Shortfall for City of BLANK City of _____ has a funding shortfall of _____. City of _____ has a backlog of _____. This is up/down by ______ since 2008. Other city specific details on the financial needs of the system.

17. Summary –Data received represents 97% of local system –PCI = 66 is an “at risk” category & drops to 54 by 2020 with existing funding –The funding shortfall considering all existing revenues is $78.9 billion over the next 10 years –Need to more than double existing funding to maintain transportation assets –The Legislature & Governor must take immediate and comprehensive action to save billions in transportation funding

18. Questions?