Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 1B, Transportation Bond Measure (2006)
| California Proposition 1B | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Transportation | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Bond issue | Origin State Legislature |
California Proposition 1B was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $19.925 billion in bonds for transportation projects "aimed at relieving congestion, improving movement of goods, improving air quality, and enhancing safety and security of the transportation." |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $19.925 billion in bonds for transportation projects. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 1B |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,112,142 | 61.36% | ||
| No | 3,218,657 | 38.64% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 1B authorized the State of California to sell $19.925 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." Bond revenues would be expended as follows:[1]
- $11.3 billion for congestion reduction efforts, local road and highway improvements;
- $4 billion for local transit and intercity rail services;
- $3.2 billion for projects to improve the movement of goods through ports, state highways and rail systems, and between California and Mexico and to improve air quality by reducing emissions from transporting goods; and
- $1.5 billion for projects to improve disaster response capabilities and improve disaster and secutiy planning by ports, harbors, and ferry terminals.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 1B was as follows:
| “ | Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways; upgrades freeways to reduce congestion; repairs local streets and roads; upgrades highways along major transportation corridors. Improves seismic safety of local bridges. Expands public transit. Helps complete the state’s network of car pool lanes. Reduces air pollution. Improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports. Provides for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000). Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
- State costs of about $38.9 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($19.9 billion) and interest ($19.0 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $1.3 billion per year.
- Additional unknown state and local government costs to operate and maintain transportation infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, and buses and railcars) funded with bonds. A portion of these costs would be offset by revenues generated by the improvements, such as fares and tolls.
Support
Supporters
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 1B were signed by the following individuals:[1]
- Marian Bergeson, chair, California Transportation Commission
- Alan C. Lloyd, Former Chair, California Air Resources Board
- Allan Zaremberg, President, California Chamber of Commerce
- Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers Association
- Thomas V. McKernan, President, Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA)
- Michael Brown, Commissioner, California Highway Patrol
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 1B:[1]
| “ |
YES ON PROPOSITION 1B: BUILD NEW ROADS AND HIGHWAYS NOW California has the most congested highways in the nation—we spend 500,000 hours stuck in traffi c every day. It’s clear that the time to rebuild California’s roads, highways, and transportation systems is now. Proposition 1B puts backlogged transportation projects on the fast track, reducing congestion and improving highway safety. While Prop. 1A protects the gas tax funds we already pay at the pump, Prop. 1B is just as important because it provides funding now to jump-start repairs of our aging highways and to start building the transportation projects we know we’ll need in the future. YES ON 1B IMPROVES SAFETY, REDUCES CONGESTION, AND EXPANDS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Proposition 1B will fund projects in every corner of the state. Prop. 1B invests in:
YES ON 1B WILL REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY Prop. 1B includes funding to reduce air pollution by replacing old polluting school buses, expanding mass transit, and expanding carpool and HOV lanes. And, by reducing congestion on our freeways and roads, Prop. 1B will also help reduce car emissions—one of the leading sources of air pollution. YES ON 1B: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND NO NEW TAXES
YES ON 1B: PART OF A LONG-TERM PLAN TO REBUILD CALIFORNIA Proposition 1B is part of the Rebuild California Plan, which uses the taxes we’re already paying to build the roads, housing, schools, and water systems we need to sustain our economy and our quality of life for the long term. REBUILD CALIFORNIA: YES ON 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E California’s population will reach 50 million in the next 20 years—twice what our current infrastructure was designed for—and it can’t be rebuilt overnight. That’s why we’ve got to start now. To learn more about how this infrastructure plan will benefit you and your community, visit www.ReadForYourself.org. YES ON 1B: SAFER ROADS, LESS POLLUTION, AND REDUCED TRAFFIC CONGESTION[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Michael Villines, a member of the California State Assembly[1]
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 1B:[1]
| “ |
$32 billion. That is what our children and grandchildren will pay to settle the debt associated with this bond. All this for funding costly programs at the expense of desperately needed highway construction. Make no mistake: every Member of the Legislature who voted against this bond measure supports restoring our state’s crumbling transportation system. We support dedicating every dollar you pay in gas taxes to our highways. And, we support building for California’s future wisely. However, this measure fails to achieve these important goals in a fiscally responsible manner. Improved transportation is a critical issue for our state, but equally important is that each additional borrowed dollar we spend worsens our budget deficit and could cause significant consequences for hard-working California families. A fiscally responsible solution would be a “pay as you go” approach to funding much-needed transportation projects. This approach will pay for infrastructure improvements from the general fund (taxes you already pay) and allow California to borrow less money to meet its annual obligations. By setting aside a portion of the budget each year for infrastructure, we will be able to better meet our state’s complex needs and not saddle our children and grandchildren with backbreaking debt. Of further concern in this measure is the rush to spend our tax dollars. In hastily passing this bond measure, the Legislature failed to include time and cost saving opportunities such as “Design-Build” and environmental permitting reforms that would have streamlined the construction process, completing more projects with the same amount of money. Additionally, within 3 weeks after voter approval of this measure, the California Transportation Commission is required to “develop and adopt guidelines” to fund all outlined transportation programs and spend billions of your hard-earned tax dollars. Then CALTRANS and your regional and county transportation agencies must submit all potential transportation projects to the California Transportation Commission. Just think: A state government agency must put rules in place to spend billions of dollars in just 3 weeks on projects across California without allowing enough time for public oversight and review. Is this the best way to spend your tax dollars? Significant fiscal decisions in Government should not be made without adequate time for due diligence and analysis. Governor Schwarzenegger is right; California state government has neglected the transportation needs of our State for three decades and something needs to be done. But let’s do this right. Let’s go back to the drawing board and fi nd a responsible way to focus on critically needed projects while at the same time developing a financially accountable plan that includes a “pay as you go” element, without any wasteful spending to pay for these important projects. We should demand that our children and grandchildren have a transportation system that meets the needs of the 21st Century. That’s why you need to vote “no” on this bond and force the Legislature to produce a transportation infrastructure plan for our future that is responsible, realistic, and result driven.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1B on the ballot via Senate Bill 1266 of the 2005–2006 Regular Session (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2006).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 61 | 10 |
| Senate | 37 | 1 |
See also
External links
- Official 2006 General Election Voter guide
- PDF of the mailed November 7, 2006 voter guide for Proposition 1B
- Guide to Proposition 1B from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 1B from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 1B from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 ballot proposition election results
Footnotes
