Design-Build Transportation Projects Face Roadblocks in California

Over the past 10 years, California lawmakers have made tremendous strides in providing express design-build procurement authority to pubic agencies in the state. This authority, however, has not been applied evenly across all project types or agencies.

As matters stand in 2011, much broader design-build authority exists for public buildings or “vertical” projects than for transportation or “horizontal” projects.  Within the realm of horizontal projects, projects on the state highway system are subject to a number of constraints that do not apply to other types of projects.  And the express authority provided to a limited number of agencies under California’s Design-Build Demonstration Program and Design-Build Transit law is temporary and set to expire within the next decade.  In general, most public agencies still face an uphill battle if they wish to use design-build for transportation projects.

To reap the full benefits of design-build, the California Legislature would be well-advised to adopt permanent, general legislation that allows public agencies to use design-build on a wider range of projects, leaving the details of the procurement to be determined by the agencies as appropriate for their needs. 

See Nossaman’s article "California Public Contracting Laws: Design Build Authority for Transportation Projects" for more information on California’s most recently enacted transportation-specific design-build laws and on options available to public agencies who do not have express design-build authority but may nonetheless wish to combine design and construction services under a single contract for a transportation project.

Transportation For America's Review of Deficient Bridges

We all know that our infrastructure is aging.  Considering how hot the issue of transportation funding (or lack thereof) has become, it is almost impossible not to see or hear something on this topic daily.  That being said, Transportation for America has provided a new way for us to fixate on the state of disrepair of our nation’s bridges – an interactive map. 

The map is color-coded and uses green to mark states that are more-or-less maintaining their bridges.  A special hats off to Florida and Nevada, which rank 50th and 51st respectively in the list of disrepair.  In contrast, the map uses a deep, ominous red – something akin to a scarlet letter - to mark states whose transportation dollars just aren’t going far enough.  Pennsylvania and Oklahoma get the dubious honor of being coded red, with 26.5% and 22.0% of their bridges being deficient respectively.

Once you have taken a look at how the states stack up against each other, you may want to click on the “Near You” button above the map.  This allows you to insert any address and locate deficient bridges within a 10-mile radius.  Depending on where you look, this can be relatively shocking.

Whether you are looking at the interactive map or using the “Near You” function, you should note that if you scroll down Transportation for America has provided a more detailed chart showing the percent of bridge traffic going over deficient bridges.  This twist on the information can be quite interesting.  For example, though California is only in 18th place on the overall list of deficient bridges, the chart shows that California has the 3rd highest rate of total bridge traffic going over deficient bridges (indicating that California’s deficient bridges are in high demand).

Three Big Winners In Latest Round of High-Speed Rail Grants

Today U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced an additional $2 billion in High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funding, bringing the total awards for the program to $10.1 billion.

The $2 billion awarded today by the Department of Transportation was largely redistributed from initial awards to Florida, whose governor canceled the state’s high-speed rail project due to concerns about cost overruns and operating subsidies.  DOT distributed today’s funds to 22 projects in 15 states, but three big winners together received over $1.8 billion or about 90% of the additional money.

Secretary LaHood focused on the job-creating benefits of these grants, stating that “the investments we’re making today will help states across the country create jobs, spur economic development and boost manufacturing in their communities.”

On the theory that good news on high speed and intercity rail should be savored, we will roll out our view of the big winners on three successive days, in reverse order.

The third biggest winner in this latest round of funding is California.

The California High Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”) today received $300 million to help extend by an additional 20 miles construction of an initial 113-mile Central Valley segment (from Bakersfield to Fresno) of its proposed statewide system.  The CHSRA has already received almost $3 billion in federal funds for final design and construction of the Central Valley segment.  The additional funds will allow CHSRA to extend the initial construction segment from Fresno north to a wye junction, where one future track will be constructed to San Jose and another future track will be constructed to Merced.

Curt Pringle, chairman of CHSRA, said today: “It is a testament to the strength of California’s project that we have won 40 percent of every federal dollar awarded for the development of high-speed rail. In the past 15 months we have won the lion’s share of federal dollars, unlocked state bond funds and began engaging the private sector to secure their future participation, so that we can begin construction and begin creating thousands of quality jobs next year.”

The proposed California high-speed rail system will eventually traverse up to 800 miles and is currently estimated to cost about $45 billion.

Peter W. Denton also contributed to this post.

 

California Conference Highlights State Funding Options

With the delay of the federal transportation re-authorization and federal transportation funding in limbo, state transportation agencies across the nation are trying to cope any way they can. In California this week, 19 “self help” local transportation financing agencies - that collectively generate more than $4 billion a year for transportation - drew a large crowd of transportation public agency officials, elected officials, contractors and consultants to the 20th Annual Focus on the Future Conference in Los Angeles to explore their options. Conference speakers discussed current developments in transportation funding, environmental compliance and project delivery. The news on project delivery and innovation was positive, the environmental compliance news mixed, and the funding news pretty discouraging.

Interspersed with the grim chronicling of the current state and federal funding landscapes, the conference highlighted some bright spots, including federal ARRA funds, Measure R funding in Los Angeles, and innovative project delivery, PPPs and congestion pricing.

The Conference kicked off on Monday with a presentation by Assemblyman Mike Feuer who had about the only piece of good news on the funding front. He regaled the crowd with his story about how the Legislature passed AB 2321, which allowed the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to put Measure R on the November 2008 ballot. Measure R passed by the narrowest of margins, allowing MTA to impose an additional one half cent sales tax for 40 years providing $9 billion of new revenues for transportation and transit projects in the county.

Feuer was followed by a panel that discussed the arduous federal reauthorization process. Kathy Ruffalo, a Washington lobbyist and member of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission, led off, noting that it’s unlikely that a reauthorization bill will be enacted within the next 12-18 months.  Critical to enactment, in her view, is movement on the issue of new revenue sources.  She noted that the current primary sources, gasoline and diesel fuel taxes, are declining due to increases in the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet. She outlined some of the options, starting with increasing the fuel tax (viewed as political suicide by many Congressional members) and following with some more innovative options including VMT, user fees and congestion pricing that the Finance Commission has proposed. She warned that any creative solutions would take time to implement.

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s lunch-time address was enough to spoil appetites. Lockyer’s message about state funding was unambiguous; the Legislature and the Administration are deadlocked and unlikely to take meaningful action to resolve the State’s structural budget deficit in the foreseeable future. He believes the State’s budget deficit is not only structural; it’s effectively permanent, meaning that attempts to balance the state budget by “borrowing” from various transportation accounts can be expected to continue.

On the environmental front, a panel on Tuesday morning discussed issues related to implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, the greenhouse gas initiatives. Views ranged from modest optimism that greenhouse gas reduction goals could be achieved to strong skepticism about the efficacy of the whole program. Jack Boda from SanDAG reflected the view that, for the most part, elements of an implementation program were already in place, and that full implementation was feasible. Josh Shaw, with the California Transit Association, was less optimistic, noting that there seemed to be a disconnect between the Legislature’s mandate to reduce greenhouse gases, and its willingness to strip funding from transit to balance the budget. Lucy Dunn, President of the Orange County Business Council and a member of the California Transportation Commission, confessed to being an “agnostic” on the whole issue of greenhouse gas and global warming impacts, and expressed the strong view that implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 mandates were a potential political and economic disaster for the state. 

Finally, on the project delivery and innovation front, Randall Iwasaki, Caltrans Director,  who teed up the Tuesday morning session of the Conference, delivered a positive report on the state’s recent success in attracting ARRA and other federal stimulus funds and in delivering the Caltrans program of projects. Looking to the future, he acknowledged that the State’s continuing fiscal crisis, and the failure of the Congress to move the reauthorization bill presented potential problems. In respect to innovation, panels on congestion pricing and public private partnerships reported on the success in other states in using these mechanisms to fund and deliver transportation projects, and on recent efforts in California to use these new “tools”.  In his report, Iwasaki also noted that Caltrans intended to move aggressively to implement the design build and public private partnership authority granted by the Legislature in SBX2 4 (Stats. 2009, Ch 4).