BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 620
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 620
Roger Hernández - As Amended January 5, 2016
SUBJECT: High-occupancy toll lanes: exemptions from tolls
SUMMARY: Expands the low-income assistance program associated
with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's (Metro's) value-pricing and transit development
program (ExpressLanes Program). Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands the requirement that Metro work with low-income
commuters in communities affected by the ExpressLanes Program
in the Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 110 (I-110)
corridors to require that mitigation measures (such as reduced
toll charges and toll credits for transit users) be extended
also to low-income transit users.
2)Provides that these mitigation measures apply to low-income
commuters and transit users that do not otherwise meet the
criteria for a hardship exemption, as described below.
3)Requires Metro, until January 1, 2022, to exempt commuters
from ExpressLanes toll charges if they meet the eligibility
requirements for any one of the following public assistance
programs:
AB 620
Page 2
a) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
Act (CalWORKS Program);
b) State Supplementary Program for Aged, Blind and
Disabled;
c) County Aid Relief to Indigents;
d) CalFresh (a.k.a. Food Stamp Program);
e) Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants; or
f) Cash Assistance Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled
Legal Immigrants.
4)Authorizes Metro to discontinue issuing hardship exemptions if
it determines at a public hearing that issuing additional
exemptions will "significantly jeopardize" the amount of toll
revenues necessary to operate and maintain the ExpressLanes
Program.
5)Requires Metro to report to the Legislature by January 31,
2019, the number of hardship exemptions that were provided
during the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31,
2018, and specifically how many were provided to commuters
residing in the San Gabriel Valley.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 620
Page 3
1)Authorizes Metro to conduct, administer, and operate the
ExpressLanes Program on I-10 and I-110 in Los Angeles County.
2)Requires Metro, when implementing the program, to work with
affected communities in the two highway corridors and provide
mitigation measures for low-income commuters, including
reduced toll charges and toll credits for transit users.
3)Requires that participants in the low-income assistance
program meet eligibility requirements for any one of several
specific public assistance programs.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: SB 1422 (Ridley-Thomas), Chapter 547, Statutes of
2008, authorized Metro, until January 15, 2013, to develop and
operate a value-pricing and transit development demonstration
program involving high-occupancy toll lanes, referred to as
ExpressLanes. The program was primarily funded with a $210
million congestion reduction demonstration grant from the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Tolling began in November 2012 on
the I-110 and in February 2013 on the I-10. AB 1224 (Eng),
Chapter 441, Statutes of 2010, extended the sunset and reporting
dates for the ExpressLanes Program from January 2013 to January
2015, and SB 1298 (Hernández), Chapter 531, Statutes of 2013,
recast the program and extended it indefinitely.
The author introduced AB 620 because he is concerned about the
impact that the ExpressLanes program is having on constituents
in his district, particularly low-income constituents. He has
AB 620
Page 4
voiced concerns that the ExpressLanes Program was supposed to
improve commutes for all users in the corridor, not just the
toll-paying ones. He asserts that these improvements have not,
however, materialized and that lanes adjacent to the tolled
lanes experience longer periods of congestion now than they did
prior to the start of the ExpressLanes Program. Consequently,
commuters that can afford to pay the tolls enjoy shorter
commutes at the expense of non-paying commuters (including his
low-income constituents) for whom travel times have worsened.
The author also believes Metro's low-income assistance program
is underperforming, as demonstrated by low enrollment rates in
the program and the fact that there are only two facilities in
all of Los Angeles County where applicants can take proof of
eligibility to participate in the low-income assistance program
(in addition to being able to mail the information in).
Generally, concerns for the economic impact that toll facilities
could have on low-income commuters are well founded, considering
that economic studies show that the biggest burden on family
incomes is the cost of housing and transportation. For example,
a report by Smart Growth America found that transportation is
the second largest expense for American households, costing more
than food, clothing, and health care. Furthermore, it has been
documented that the working poor spend a fraction of what other
workers spend on commuting expenses, but those costs amounted to
a significantly higher proportion of their income.
AB 620
Page 5
To participate in Metro's low-income assistance program, an
individual must be a Los Angeles County resident with an annual
household income at or below two times the federal poverty level
(e.g., $40,180 for a 3-person household). Applications for the
program can be submitted by mail or at one of two walk-in
centers. Qualifying residents receive a $25 credit when they
set up an account, which can be applied to either the
transponder deposit or pre-paid toll deposit. The monthly
account maintenance fee is waived. To date, 8,877 households
are enrolled in the low-income assistance program out of over
450,000 Express Lane accounts.
AB 620 requires Metro to modify its low-income assistance
program by: 1) expanding it to require mitigation measures for
low-income transit users as well as low-income commuters; and 2)
requiring Metro to offer, for five years, toll-free passage to
commuters that are eligible for specific public assistance
programs. AB 620 tries to mitigate the financial impact that
hardship exemptions could create by granting Metro the authority
to opt-out of the hardship exemption requirement upon a finding
that granting the hardships would jeopardize the ExpressLanes
operation. Hardship exemptions up to that point would still be
valid until 2022.
According to Metro, its low-income assistance program is the
first in the nation to address equity concerns on toll lane
projects and has been, by many accounts generally successful.
Metro claims that it has relied heavily on independent
consultants and extensive outreach with affected communities to
design and improve the program to ensure it reflects community
concerns and meets the needs of low-income commuters. Metro
reports that, to date, the ExpressLanes Program has invested
over $150 million in transit-related improvements along the
AB 620
Page 6
I-110 and I-10 corridors, including a new transit center in El
Monte, 59 new buses for transit providers and safety
improvements to the Harbor Transitway.
Metro is opposing AB 620. Metro's chairman of the Board of
Directors, Mr. Mark Ridley-Thomas writes in opposition, "As the
original author [of the legislation authorizing the ExpressLanes
Program], I appreciate and share Assemblymember Hernández'
interest in ensuring that the Program benefits low-income
commuters. At the time that my bill was being developed, I
insisted that Metro address this issue in a comprehensive and
thoughtful manner, requiring an Equity Plan, and that the agency
work directly with affected communities to address their
concerns. In response, Metro implemented a robust outreach
effort that has included over 700 meetings and briefings." Mr.
Ridley-Thomas also argues that the overwhelming and consistent
priority voiced by low-income commuters in the ExpressLane
corridors has been for toll revenues to be invested in transit
services and that exemptions from the tolls were not a priority
for these commuters.
Committee concerns: The committee has some concerns with the
bill:
1)The bill will increase congestion in the tolled lanes.
Consequently, Metro may have to increase toll rates to manage
the increased congestion.
2)AB 620 bill does not define "low-income" other than for
purposes of providing hardship exemptions. It is not clear,
then, who would be eligible for the other mitigation measures
required by the bill.
AB 620
Page 7
3)Clear statements of desired, measurable performance outcomes
should be included in the bill.
4)Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB
194 (Frazier), Chapter 687, Statues of 2015, which grants
broad authority to the Caltrans and to regional transportation
authorities to develop and operate toll facilities, upon
approval of the California Transportation Commission. A major
tenet of AB 194 is local control for locally-sponsored toll
facilities, in acknowledgement that community-specific needs
should influence how toll facilities are developed and
operated and how any excess revenues are spent. Generally,
the emphasis on local control of locally sponsored facilities
should be maintained, consistent with the spirit of AB 194.
[Regarding AB 620, however, the author argues that, because
the ExpressLanes Program (including requirements for the
low-income assistance program) were specifically authorized in
statute, it is appropriate that the Legislature remain
involved in refining this specific program.]
Previous legislation: SB 1298 (Hernández), Chapter 531,
Statutes of 2013, recast the program and extended it
indefinitely.
AB 1224 (Eng), Chapter 441, Statutes of 2010, extended the
sunset and reporting dates for the ExpressLanes Program from
January 2013 to January 2015.
SB 1422 (Ridley-Thomas), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2008,
authorized, until January 15, 2013, Metro to operate the
ExpressLanes Program.
AB 620
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093