Market Outlook
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Market Outlook

on

  • 365 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
365
Views on SlideShare
365
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Proposition 111 (1990), Traffic Congestion Relief And Spending Limitation Act Of 1990 (Deukmejian) Enacted a 55% increase in truck weight fees and a five-cent-per gallon increase in the state's fuel tax effective August 1, 1990, with an additional one cent tax starting on January 1 for each of the next four years. The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 111 on the ballot via Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (Statutes of 1989, Resolution Chapter 66). Proposition 108 (1990), Passenger Rail Bond Act, (Deukmejian) The act provides for a bond issue of one billion dollars to provide funds for acquisition of rights-of-way, capital expenditures, and acquisitions of rolling stock for intercity rail, commuter rail, and rail transit programs. The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 108 on the ballot in AB 973 (Statutes of 1989, Ch. 108)Proposition 116 (1990), Bonds for Passenger and Commuter Rail, (Deukmejian) Authorized a bond of $1.99 billion for passenger rail and commuter rail administered through the Public Transportation Account (PTA)Proposition 42 (2002), Transportation Congestion Improvement Act, (Davis) Provided that from 2003-04 through 2007-08, gasoline sales tax revenues were used for specific state and local transportation purposes 20% to public transportation 40% to transportation improvement projects funded in the STIP40% to local streets and roads improvements
  • The Traffic Congestion Relief Act of 2000, AB 2928 and SB 1662 (Davis) Created the TCRP; the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF); and committed $4.909 billion to 141 specific projects designated in law. Proposition 1B (2006), Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act (Schwarzenegger) Authorized the State of California to sell $19.93 billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects to “relieve congestion, improve the movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance the safety and security of the transportation system.” The California State Legislature voted put Proposition 1B on the ballot via SB 1266 (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2006)Proposition 1A (2008), High-Speed Rail Act (Schwarzenegger) Approved the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund an 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority When voters approved the measure, the estimate for the total cost of the project was $40 billion now it is estimated to cost between $98.5 billion and $118 billionARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Obama/Schwarzenegger) Primary objective was to save and create jobs - $831 billion total investment $48.1 billion for transportation related infrastructure projects California’s highway share was $27 billion plus a substantial amount of High-Speed Rail dollars
  • SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997) changed the way projects were programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by requiring 75 percent of funds to go to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), to be programmed by regional transportation planning agencies (RTPA) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and 25 percent to go to the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), to be programmed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).    By emphasizing the RTIP, SB 45 thereby granted expanded regional control and accountability over how the bulk of state and federal transportation dollars are spent.  
  • These numbers refer to the Orange County 1989 20-year transportation funding program in 1989 dollars. For your information gas was less than $1 per gallon. In 1990 transportation revenues were $8 billion. This amount was equally funded between local and state and federal revenue sources.
  • The 2011 SCAG Revenue Model reflects the transportation revenue sources for the Southern California region. Local sources of funding comprise the largest share. This means today we are paying a larger share of the pie.
  • “California’s transportation system is in jeopardy. Underfunding – decade after decade – has led to the decay of one of the State’s greatest assets.”- California Transportation Commission 2011
  • California’s unfunded transportation needs are$295 billionthrough 2021.- California Transportation Commission Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011
  • Caltrans maintenance needs are growing.This chart reflects the state-wide shortfall in billions of dollars.
  • Infrastructure Report CardCALIFORNIAPavement:58% of California’s Roadways Require Rehabilitation or Pavement MaintenanceBridges:20% Require Major Maintenance or Preventative Work6% Require Complete Replacement- Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011
  • Infrastructure Report CardCALIFORNIA 6 of the Nation’s 10 Worst Urban Area Pavement Conditions 14 of the Nation’s 20 Most Congested Transportation Corridors 66% of California’s Major Urban Highways are Congested- Texas Transportation Institute
  • Poor Road ConditionsCost Californian’s $13.9 B Annually$586 per MotoristContribute to More than One-Half of US Highway Fatalities:More than Drunk Driving, Speeding or Failing to use Seat Belts
  • Population will Grow from 38 MM to 44 MM by 2020 VMT is growing 10 times faster than lane miles. - Governor’s 2006 Strategic Growth Plan Truck freight is expected to increase 75% by 2035. - Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011
  • Funding Will Collapse in 2013
  • Changes in technology have caused fuel taxes to grow slower than the amount of vehicle miles traveled and population growth. Two factors are prominent in this dilemma: Increasing fuel economy of newer cars is causing less fuel to be consumed per mile of travel and, hence, less fuel tax collected per mile. Increasing use of alternative fuels, such as methanol and compressed natural gas, which are not taxed as much as gasoline or diesel fuel. Increasing use of hybrid and electric vehicles will have the same effect. Additionally, with state budget issues, transportation revenues are being diverted to backfill other areas.
  • 19 of 58 counties are self-help counties in California. These counties represent 81 percent or 30 million persons in California. Local funding through sales tax measure provides opportunities to Jump start projects Leverages state and federal money Increases local control and flexibility Connects public action with direct benefits Measure M2 is expected to raise $15 billion during the life of the program

Market Outlook Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Market Outlook State Transportation ProgramAGC – CLC Working WeekendWill Kempton, CEOJanuary 25, 2012
  • 2. History of Funding• Proposition 111 (1990) o Last gas tax increase• Proposition 108 (1990) o $1 billion bond for rail capital expenditures• Proposition 116 (1990) o $1.99 billion bond for passenger and commuter rail• Proposition 42 (2002) o Gasoline sales tax used for transportation purposes 2
  • 3. History of Funding contd.• Traffic Congestion Relief Act (2000) o $4.91 billion for specific projects• Proposition 1B (2006) o $19.93 billion bonds for transportation projects• Proposition 1A (2008) o $9.95 billion for High-Speed Rail• ARRA (2009) o $48.1 billion for transportation infrastructure 3
  • 4. SB 45 (1997)• Changed how projects were programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)• Required 75% of funds go to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)• Expanded regional control and accountability 4
  • 5. Transportation Revenue Sources 1990 - $8 billion Local 50% 50% State & Federal 5
  • 6. Transportation Revenue Sources 2011 – $305 billion 11% 15% Local State Federal 74% * 2011 SCAG Revenue Model 6
  • 7. 7
  • 8. Statewide Transportation System NeedsAssessment 2011 “California’s transportation system is in jeopardy. Underfunding – decade after decade – has led to the decay of one of the State’s greatest assets.” - California Transportation Commission 2011 8
  • 9. Neglected Improvements are Staggering California’s unfunded needs are $295 billion through 2021. - California Transportation Commission Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011 9
  • 10. Caltrans Maintenance Needs are Growing - Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011 10
  • 11. Infrastructure Report CardCALIFORNIA• Pavement: o 58% of California’s Roadways Require Rehabilitation or Pavement Maintenance• Bridges: o 20% Require Major Maintenance or Preventative Work o 6% Require Complete Replacement - Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011 11
  • 12. Infrastructure Report CardCALIFORNIA• 6 of the Nation’s 10 Worst Urban Area Pavement Conditions• 14 of the Nation’s 20 Most Congested Transportation Corridors• 66% of California’s Major Urban Highways are Congested - Texas Transportation Institute 12
  • 13. Poor Road Conditions• Cost Californian’s $13.9 Billion Annually o $586 per Motorist• Contribute to More than One-Half of US Highway Fatalities: o More than Drunk Driving, Speeding or Failing to use Seat Belts - TRIP 13
  • 14. Population will Grow from 38 MM to 44 MMby 2020 VMT is growing 10 times faster than lane miles. - Governor’s 2006 Strategic Growth Plan Truck freight is expected to increase 75% by 2035. - Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment 2011 14
  • 15. Funding Will Collapse in 2013 15
  • 16. Our Current Challenges• Decline of gas tax revenues and purchasing power• Diversion of transportation revenues• Lack of state and federal solutions 16
  • 17. Develop Local Solutions• Local funding: o Jump start projects o Leverages state and federal money o Increases local control and flexibility o Connects public action with direct benefits• Measure M2 passed by 70% margin 17
  • 18. Develop State Solutions• Public-Private Partnerships• Vehicle License Fee• Fuel User Fee• Cap & Trade• Infrastructure Bond• VMT• Voter Threshold 18