California Assembly Bill AB2454

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Report Pass: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/23/26

Caption

An act to amend add and repeal Section 91 91.1 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation. state highways.

Summary

AB 2454 would require the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), working with the California Transportation Commission, to prepare a report on the condition of state highway infrastructure and the services Caltrans provides in the southeast portion of Los Angeles County. The report must assess maintenance, cleanup, improvement needs, and Caltrans’ communication and engagement with local governments in that area. It must also include recommendations for improving those services and infrastructure. The bill requires Caltrans to provide a public opportunity to comment through its website and encourages outreach to a broad set of stakeholders, including local governments, community-based organizations, environmental justice and equity groups, labor, transportation industry representatives, regional planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and transit operators. Caltrans would also be encouraged to hold a public workshop in southeast Los Angeles County. The report would be due to the Legislature and posted online by February 1, 2028, and the reporting requirement would sunset in 2032 and be repealed in 2033.

Impact

AB 2454 would add a new, geographically targeted reporting requirement to the Streets and Highways Code, creating Section 91.1 and making a related nonsubstantive amendment to Section 91. It does not directly change funding, project delivery, or maintenance standards, but it would require Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission to gather information, solicit public input, and produce recommendations focused on southeast Los Angeles County. The bill also includes legislative findings supporting a special statute for Los Angeles County, and it would temporarily apply before expiring under the bill’s sunset provisions.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, with no recorded committee transcript objections or recorded votes in the provided materials. The bill was re-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, indicating it remained under policy review rather than advancing through a final vote in the available record. Its emphasis on public input, stakeholder outreach, and local infrastructure assessment suggests it is framed as a responsive oversight measure rather than a contentious policy change.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the bill’s narrow geographic focus on the southeast portion of Los Angeles County, which is justified in the text as a special statute based on unique local transportation needs. That special-district approach could raise questions about whether a statewide reporting requirement would be more appropriate, or whether the Legislature should single out one region for a Caltrans review. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s broad list of encouraged stakeholders and public workshop expectations, which may be seen as helpful engagement requirements but also as adding administrative burden without direct operational funding.