Below is an article featured in the Summer 2013 edition of the Davis Political Review.
This will be updated soon, as per requests from readers.
California’s New State Transportation Agency: Moving the Golden State Forward?
Greg Justice (02 June 2013)
Imagine for a moment California without transportation. Going even deeper into that
contemplation, picture San Francisco without MUNI or the cable cars, Los Angeles
without suntans and caramel-colored clouds during rush-hour traffic, the San Pedro Bay
without massive cargo ships, the Inland Empire and Central Valley without freight trains
or long distance commercial vehicles, or even Davis without bicycles. Transportation is
an essential aspect of the California empire, whether for private mobility, commercial
enterprise, or “personal development.” (Workplace code for calling-in sick while headed
to Half Moon Bay.)
Beginning July 1st, California’s newest state agency – the California Transportation
Agency (“CTA”) – will become operative, and for many reasons, this represents a step
in the right direction for the state with the largest – and most-complex – transportation
system. From a much needed centralized agency focused on keeping the Golden State
moving, CTA is long overdue, and will be an important resource in California’s
government.
Birth of a New Agency
The idea of CTA comes from the Governor’s Reorganization Plan #2 (“GRP-2”),
introduced in March 2012. CTA brings together under one roof the State’s existing
transportation-related entities: Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of
Motor Vehicles, California Highway Patrol, Board of Pilot Commissioners, Governor’s
Office of Traffic Safety, California High Speed Rail Authority, as well as the California
Transportation Commission (“CTC”). In its recommendation to the Legislature, the Little
Hoover Commission (“Commission”) noted, “The plan represents a first step in the
much-needed restructuring of California state government and improves clarity,
organization and accountability by eliminating agencies, forming new agencies around
better focused missions, and bringing more state activities under agency structures for
greater administrative efficiency.” Despite widespread approval of GRP-2, the
Commission and stakeholders expressed concerns of potentially diminished
independence and increased political influence for several existing bodies. For the
proposed CTA, the concern was with reference to CTC, as well as potential ambiguities
and conflicts from Government Code sections 13975 and 13978. Following several
legislative hearings by the Assembly Special Committee on Reorganization, and a joint-meeting
of the Senate Governmental Organization and Governance & Finance
Committees, GRP-2 became enacted July 2nd of last year, and will commence
operations this July 1st.
Need for the New Agency
Prior to CTA, transportation functions in state government were housed primarily in the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (“BT&H”), with the exception of the High-Speed
Rail Authority and CTC, which were “stand-alone” entities – having no direct
agency affiliation.
As far back as 1992 – which may seem pre-historic to those reading this, the
Commission called for the establishment of a transportation agency separate from
business and housing programs. In its report, Transportation: Keep California Moving,
the Commission found, “The state consensus to develop a system encompassing a
variety of transportation modes is hindered by a highway bias in Caltrans and a lack of
advocacy in the Governor's Cabinet.” Further addressing this finding, the Commission
placed as its first recommendation, “The Governor and Legislature should enact
legislation to establish a new Transportation Agency.” As to why the Wilson
Administration never materialized the recommendation during his reorganizational
agenda is not known. While no leadership or administration for CTA has been
announced as this goes to print – including a potential agency secretary, one can
assume Governor Brown will utilize existing transportation staff and management from
BT&H, thereby minimizing administrative costs.
According to Assembly Legislative Analyst Malcolm Maclachlan, the main benefits of
CTA would be: “1) The opportunity to gain a better understanding of overall
transportation needs; 2) The leadership benefit of a CTA secretary who reports directly
to the Governor, and who may be able to develop long term solutions to the state's
transportation funding shortfall; and, 3) The ability to prioritize transportation needs and
coordinate cost-effective uses of limited transportation funds” (Committee Analysis, 2). Further, state government will serve with a greater voice California’s transportation
needs, already viewed as important by the electorate; the last decade alone voters
approved nearly $20 billion in general obligation bonds for transportation infrastructure.
Concerns of the New Agency
While one would expect a certain degree of hesitation with such a monumental change
in state government, the overwhelming issue brought forward in GRP-2 hearings related
to CTC’s independence and autonomy. To a lesser degree, attendees and policy
makers also expressed distress over the state’s transportation and housing objectives
laid out in the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (“SB 375”),
and how a new agency could greatly hinder policy implementation.
Before the reorganization, CTC was one of two stand-alone transportation entities
whose agency independence was ideal for effective political insulation. CTC was
created in 1978 by Assembly Bill 402 to integrate the functions of four prior – and highly
ineffective – bodies: State Aeronautics Board, Highway Commission, State
Transportation Board, and the California Toll Bridge Authority. CTC’s duties include the
programming of funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and transit
improvements throughout California, as well as serving as a consultant to the Governor
and state and federal legislative bodies for transportation policy. In accomplishing these
responsibilities, CTC’s political and administrative independence have allowed for truly
objective and deliberate funding decisions. Because CTC would now reside in CTA,
and thus, become subject to the Administration’s actions, the Associated General
Contractors of California and California's Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
raised the concern of future independence during reorganizational hearings. To
address these concerns, Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) authored Assembly Bill 1458 establishing “firewall” language in Government Code section
14534.1, providing continued independence of CTC, even as it becomes housed in
CTA. With overwhelming support from stakeholders and the Administration, the bill
passed the Senate and Assembly with a 36-0 and 79-0 vote, and was signed by
Governor Brown on July 17, 2012.
Another concern for CTA – although not as major as the independence of CTC – was
the state’s effort of tackling climate change though SB 375. Enacted in 2008, SB 375
makes California the first state to focus on the integration of housing, transportation and
land use decisions in an effort to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. SB
375 is a major part of the state’s package for addressing and mitigating climate change. Prior to CTA, transportation and housing planning were under BT&H, allowing for a
seamless coordination of policy between the agency’s respective bodies. CTA’s
establishment raised the fear that a new transportation agency will greatly impede SB
375’s effort by administratively separating main actors. However, even before CTA,
several bodies in SB 375’s efforts were already separated, and yet still maintained the
statute’s objective – the Air Resources Board residing in the California Environmental
Protection Agency, while the Department of Housing and Community Development, the
California Housing Finance Authority and the Department of Transportation reside in
BT&H. The Governor’s office has suggested all planning for SB 375 could be
coordinated through the Strategic Growth Council (“SGC”), presently moderating this
effort. SGC was created in 2008 by Senate Bill 732 to advise the Administration and
Legislature on sustainable development, and provide grants to various governments for
this purpose. In its current statutory framework, SGC does not have the direct authority
to handle transportation and housing coordination among departments, making it a
weak bridge for SB 375. However, just as the issue of CTC independence was
addressed, stakeholders and Legislators should work together to provide the statutory
authority for SGC to accomplish coordination between departments and agencies,
thereby making it a stronger policy link.
With the independence of CTC continuing in CTA, and the potential for continued
coordination among SB 375’s major state departments through a statutorily
strengthened SGC, CTA’s establishment July 1st can go forward without further worries
of its organizational effectiveness.
The Journey Ahead
Despite presently lacking staff, management, and most importantly, an agency
secretary, CTA’s future appears rewarding. CTA will provide the necessarily unified
policy presence as California moves forward tackling climate change from transport,
diversifying options for private mobility, building the nation’s first true high speed rail
system, as well as continuing our citizen’s growing desire for intercity rail and
sustainable mass transportation. With all concerns and benefits considered, the
California Transportation Agency is just the vehicle for moving the Golden State
forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment