UC Berkeley | Institute of Governmental Studies Library
|
|
Hot Topics 2006 | Proposition 1B | Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 UC Berkeley | Institute of Governmental Studies Library |
|
|
|
|
Election Results Update [8 November 2006] For updated results on all propositions, see the Secretary of State website.
Background In 2005-06 a number of competing proposals were introduced to upgrade California's infrastructure. See the related IGS Library Hot Topic, California Infrastructure, for a description of events leading up to the Legislature's passage of Proposition 1B, and background on the topic of infrastructure reform. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, California spends about $20 billion per year on various improvements to state transportation infrastructure, including highway and road improvements and passenger rail and public transit upgrades. The funds for these improvements are spent on a "pay as you go" basis. Major sources of funding include an 18-cent per gallon state gasoline excise tax and a state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Additional sources of funding include roughly $4.5 billion per year in federal gasoline and diesel fuel tax revenues. Proposition 1B was approved as Senate Bill 1266 in May 2006. The measure authorizes the State to sell $19.9 billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects. The major categories of funding are:
For a detailed breakdown of allocations see Infrastructure Bond — Details (League of California Cities). Major allocations could include:
In the Bay Area, money could be allocated to partially completed projects such as carpool lanes on Interstate 580 in eastern Alameda County, on Highway 101 in Marin County, or on the Peninsula; a fourth bore for the Caldecott Tunnel; or rebuilding the Cordelia Junction interchange of Interstates 80 and 680 and Highway 12. However, local transportation agencies could decide to allocate the funds for other transportation needs. Proposition 1B would represent the largest state expenditure on transportation infrastructure since the governorship of Edmund "Pat" Brown in the 1950s, an era which saw a master plan developed for spending $10.5 billion on expanding the state highway system — the most extensive public works project ever undertaken by a single entity (although fewer than half of the roadways that were originally envisioned by the 1958 plan ended up actually being built). According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California, the state spent $931 per capita on capital outlays in 2002, above the national average of $917, and one-quarter more than the previous high-water mark for capital outlays, in 1967. However, the state's portion of those outlays devoted to highway and road improvements was significantly less than the national average ($156 per capita versus $233 per capita nationally). Two September public opinion surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Field Poll show that support for Proposition 1B is not much higher than 50%, which is usually an indication that there is not enough support for a measure to comfortably pass. Campaign Finance Browse our updated webpage listing major contributors to all of the campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures here.
Proponents claim that the measure will bring critically needed investment to California's transportation network. They respond to objections about the fiscal responsibility of the ballot measure by pointing out that the measure will not raise taxes and will be subject to annual audits and public reports to demonstrate that bond funds are being spent in a manner consistent with the voters' intent. Opponents argue that Proposition 1B fails to achieve its goals in a fiscally responsible manner. While they agree that improved transportation is critical, they object that bond funding will saddle the state with $32 billion dollars in debt, including interest, and that the funding scheme that the initiative would establish would end the "pay as you go" system without putting anything equally fiscally responsible in its place. While a number of environmentalists are critical of environmental aspects of the transportation bond, which they claim will lead to more urban sprawl, most activist and special interest groups have not chosen to actively oppose the measure.
Official Voter Guide Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. Individual Campaign Committees League of Women Voters of Education Fund non-partisan analysis
California Taxpayer Protection Committee Rebuilding California Yes on 1A and 1B
Analyzing the Vote for Selected Propositions, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006. Exit poll: Complete poll data, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006. Majorities of Voters Appear Ready to Approve the State's Infrastructure Bonds (Props. 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E). Field Poll, Release 2219, November 4, 2006. Baldassare, Mark. Baldassare, Mark. Feinstein, Brown and Lockyer ahead, other statewide races close or tied; Support for infrastructure bonds and propositions 86 and 87 lukewarm. Voters are supporting four of the five bond proposals on the November ballot, although not by overwhelming margins. Field Poll, Release 2206, July 28, 2006. Continuing negative job appraisals of the Governor and the legislature, despite initial support for infrastructure bonds. Field Poll, Release 2201, June 5, 2006.
Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E: The Public Works Bond Package. Oct. 2006, California Budget Project Semler, Michael. A Primer: The State's Infrastructure and the Use of Bonds. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, January 2006.
The following citations include links to full-text articles online, when they are available. Some restrictions on use apply, due to licensing requirements. For more information, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles. Weintraub, Daniel. Hunter, Chris.
"Proposition 1B transportation money sought," Pacifica Tribune, Nov. 22, 2006 Access World News (UCB) Richards, Gary; de Sá, Karen; Hull, Dana. Cabanatuan, Michael. Richman, Josh. Marinucci, Carla. Bizjak, Tony. Wildermuth, John. Richards, Gary. Furillo, Andy "Yes on propositions 1B, 1E; No on propositions 1C, 1D," Alameda Times-Star, Oct. 1, 2006. Access World News (UCB) [Opinion] "Bonds, pro and con: 1A, 1B and 1E deliver, but others disappoint," San Diego Union-Tribune, Sep. 29, 2006. Access World News (UCB) Lucas, Greg. "Our voice," Desert-Sun, Sep. 28, 2006. Access World News (UCB) Sheppard, Harrison. Cabanatuan, Michael. Mecoy, Laura; Yamamura, Kevin. Walters, Dan. Yi, Matthew. Hecht, Peter. Chorneau, Tom.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ©2006 | Regents of the University of California | This page by Institute of Governmental Studies Library staff | Last updated 28 November 2006 |