HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-58 - Opposing California Department of Transportation Policy ChangesRESOLUTION NO. 80-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY CHANGES.
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation has proposed
to the California Transportation Commission a major change in existing
policy for local/State cost sharing for crossings and connections to
freeways and expressways; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Commission has prepared
a position paper attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part of this Res-
olution; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa desires to take a position regard-
ing the proposed California Department of Transportation policy change;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Costa Mesa opposes the proposed California Department of Transporta-
tion policy changes; and that the City of Costa Mesa fully supports
the position taken by the Orange County Transportation Commission in
Exhibit "A" attached.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1980.
Mayor of the City of Cost Mesa
ATTEST:
eputy Cler of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I. EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 80-57 was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
19th day of May, 1980.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 20th day of May, 1980.
NVL44, Z
By: Deputy City lerk
o
Ci y
Clerk and
ex -officio Clerk
City
Council of
the City of
Costa sa
NVL44, Z
By: Deputy City lerk
f
DRAFT
OCTC POSITION PAPER
Comments on Caltrans' Proposed Modification
to Existing Policy Goncerning Local/State Cost Sharing
for Crossings of and Connections to Freeways
and Expressways
The Orange County Transportation Commission, the county's 26 cities and the
County of Orange are opposed to the proposed modification to existing policy re-
garding local/state cost sharing of connections and crossings of freeways and
expressways. The existing policy is based on principles which recognize the
state's share of responsibilities for these facilities. We contend that those
principles and nature of the state's responsibilities have not changed, and there-
fore a modification to existing policy is not warranted.
THE PROPOSED POLICY IGNORES LONG STANDING PRINCIPLES OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
The proposed new policy would shift the financial responsibility to local govern-
ment for new or modified freeway crossings and connections by redefining state
benefits in terms of the extent to which a project solves an existing state
highway problem. This ignores long -held principles which recognize that freeway
overcrossings and connections must be considered as part of a total community
land use and transportation plan, and that the state has some responsibility for
such facilities.
Caltrans' Project Development Procedures Manual states:
The freeway is an integral part of the overall transportation system,
and must be planned so that it can be combined with local road facil-
ities to provide a smoothly operating traffic system. (Caltrans Project
Development Procedures Manual, "New Public Road Connections to and
Crossings of Freeways", Section 3-9-1, January, 1976).
Discussion of the state's responsibility for such facilities can be found in
various policy documents and state code sections, but with specific reference
to Caltrans' Policy and Procedures Memorandum 78-3, dated 2-28-78, which states:
All projects on state highways are considered to be Caltrans projects
even when financed by others. They will be presented to the Transpor-
tation Commission as part of the budget process. The facilities to be
constructed will become state property, along with maintenance costs
and potential tort liability. Therefore, to assure well-designed safe
and properly constructed facilities, they will be developed in accordance
with all the policies, procedures, practices and standards that Caltrans
would norTnally follow in discharging its owner/operator responsibilities.
E X H/ Bi T "A„
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-58
Page 1
EXISTING POLICY PROVIDES A MORE EQUITABLE SHARING OF COSTS
The proposed new policy purports to share the cost of new overcrossings and
connections proportionate to the state and local benefits. However, the
existing policy accomplishes this proportionate sharing of costs by recog-
nizing a far more equitable share of benefits. Existing policy is based
on a recognition that the benefit to the freeway 1s that grade separation.
Grade separation allows for the limited access, free flow functioning of the
state facility. Local roads, on the other hand, do not require grade separa-
tion to function.
In addition, existing policy is based on the principle that a freeway should
not be a barrier to well planned local community development. Thus, under
existing policy local government bears the cost "as if" the barrier created
by the freeway were not present, and the state bears the additional costs
imposed by the freeway.
THE NEW POLICY WOULD APPLY RETROACTIVELY
The new policy is not intended to be retroactive. The Department states
there would be no changes in cost allocation for existing freeway agreements.
A close reading of the policy proves that this is not the case. Presently
executed freeway agreements were made based on the understanding that future
modifications to crossings and interchanges, particularly widenings, would
be constructed based on the original sharing of costs. Caltrans Project
Development Procedures Manual states, "It has been tacitly understood during
freeway agreement negotiations for an unconstructed route that future requests
for new connections would be considered on their merit when the need develops.
The local agency would not be 'locked in' to the original agreement nor would
they be forced to compromise good community planning. A spirit of mutual trust
and cooperation is essential to the success of the freeway agreement process."
Rarely have modifications and widenings been so specifically designated in free-
way agreements that they would be protected under the new policy. Good community
planning may have called for phased widening of local streets and overcrossings.
Under the new policy, this would result in a penalty to local government. The
full financial responsibility for subsequent phases would be shifted to local
government. This application of the proposed policy is clearly retroactive.
THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE
Caltrans argues that a modification to policy is necessary,(1) due to changing
program emphasis - the state is no longer building new freeways - and (2) due
to spiraling costs. This view is totally insensitive to local government needs,
and does not provide a meaningful basis for policy change.
The impact of an existing freeway on a local conmunity does not disappear simply
because the Department changes its program emphasis. Once built, a freeway pre-
sents a permanent barrier to even the best planned local growth and development.
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-58
Page 2
Fairness demands that the additional costs associated with the freeway continue
to be viewed as the responsibility of the state.
Furthermore, local government has been no more -immune to rising costs and decli-
ning revenues than the state. To say that additional costs should be shifted
to local government does not solve this underlying problem. Indeed, it suggests
that we should re-examine the basis on which highway revenues are distributed.
Perhaps the revenues from the 7� gas tax should be redistributed to provide a
larger share to local government.
CONCLUSION
The existing policy provides a more equitable sharing of costs based on the
relative benefits to state and local government of freeway overcrossings and
connections. The Orange County Transportation Commission is opposed to modifi-
cations to this policy as proposed by Caltrans.
Exhibit for Resolution No. 80-58
Page 3