Statewide Transportation Funding At Risk Your Name or Agency Date

1. Statewide Transportation Funding At RiskYour Name or AgencyDate 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. Sidewalks ADA ramps Curb & gutter Storm drains Lighting It’s Not Just Pavements …

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

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

8. Statewide Average PCI = 66

9. Why is 66 Critical? $2- 4/sy 66 $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* * 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. $63.6B 66 PCI Backlog ($ billion) 54 $39B 2010 2020 What Happens If We Don’t Get More Funding?

14. Existing Funding ($1.42B/year)

15. 53 cents/gallon! Funding Shortfall

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?