California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB135

Introduced
1/10/17  
Introduced
1/10/17  
Refer
1/19/17  
Refer
1/19/17  
Engrossed
5/18/17  
Engrossed
5/18/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Refer
5/18/17  
Report Pass
9/11/17  
Report Pass
9/11/17  
Refer
9/11/17  
Report Pass
9/13/17  
Report Pass
9/13/17  
Enrolled
9/15/17  
Enrolled
9/15/17  
Chaptered
9/16/17  
Chaptered
9/16/17  
Passed
9/16/17  

Caption

Transportation.

Impact

The bill's passage allows California to potentially reduce the time needed for environmental reviews and approvals, thus facilitating quicker execution of essential transportation projects. This change is expected to significantly impact the efficiency of various infrastructure projects, which includes enhanced coordination between state and federal agencies. Additionally, AB135 facilitates a more robust funding stream for local assistance, appropriating approximately $274.5 million from the Federal Trust Fund for transportation-related purposes, including capital outlay and local assistance programs.

Summary

AB135, known as the Transportation Bill, was introduced to modify sections of various codes related to transportation in California, particularly concerning the roles and responsibilities of state agencies under federal environmental laws. It aims to streamline the process for transportation projects by allowing the Secretary of Transportation to assume responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for railroad, public transportation, and multimodal projects. This represents a significant shift that may expedite project delivery, reflecting the state's desire to leverage federal frameworks to enhance its transportation infrastructure.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB135 is largely positive, particularly among proponents who view it as a necessary measure for improving California's transportation landscape. Supporters argue that the changes will boost project efficiency and effectiveness by taking advantage of federal assistance, ultimately benefiting the state’s economy and public infrastructure. However, there are concerns among some stakeholders regarding the potential erosion of local oversight and the balancing act needed between expedited processes and environmental protection.

Contention

Critical points of contention include the implications of allowing the state to assume federal responsibilities concerning environmental reviews. Critics argue that this could undermine local input and regulatory oversight, which have traditionally played a crucial role in maintaining community standards and environmental safeguards. Furthermore, there’s speculation on how well the expedited processes might mesh with existing environmental protections, which are vital for sustainable development in California. Overall, the dynamic between faster project delivery and environmental accountability remains a focal point of debate.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB120

Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity.

CA SB112

State government.

CA AB2438

Transportation funding: guidelines and plans.

CA SB798

Trade Corridor Enhancement Account.

CA AB3280

The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: regional transportation planning agency.

CA AB111

Transportation: zero-emission vehicles.

CA AB821

Transportation: Trade Corridor Enhancement Account: project nomination: California Port Efficiency Program.

CA AB3079

Transportation Corridors Enhancement Account: project selection: California Port Efficiency Program.