BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 584 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: huber VERSION: 6/1/10 Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes Hearing date: June 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Neighborhood electric vehicles DESCRIPTION: This bill authorizes, until 2016, the County of Amador and the cities of Jackson, Amador City, and Sutter Creek to establish a neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan or plans. ANALYSIS: Existing law defines a low-speed vehicle as a motor vehicle that is 4-wheeled; can attain a speed in one mile of more than 20 miles per hour (MPH) and not more than 25 MPH on a paved, level surface; and has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds. Low-speed vehicles are also known as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). NEVs meet federal motor vehicle safety standards, and one must possess a valid California driver's license to operate a NEV on public streets. Existing law generally prohibits NEVs from being operated on any roadway with a speed limit in excess of 35 MPH, but a number of bills have provided exceptions for three communities, as follows: AB 2353 (Leslie), Chapter 422, Statutes of 2004, authorized the NEV transportation plan pilot projects until January 1, 2009, for the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin, as follows: 1)Each city may establish a "neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan" for the city or some part of it. Existing law puts numerous requirements on the adoption of the plan, including consultation with local law enforcement and AB 584 (HUBER) Page 2 transportation planning officials. The plan must accommodate the travel of NEVs by identifying routes and providing for NEV facilities (separate lanes, trails, street crossings, parking, charging stations, etc.), and it may allow NEVs on streets with speed limits over 35 MPH where dedicated lanes are provided for NEVs. 2)The cities must work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish uniform specifications and symbols for signs, traffic control devices, and right-of-way designation in the plan areas. 3)If Lincoln or Rocklin adopts a NEV transportation plan, then the city must report to the Legislature on the plan, its effectiveness, and its impact on traffic flows and safety, and it must make a recommendation to the Legislature on extending the sunset date or expanding the authorization for NEV transportation plans statewide. AB 2963 (Gaines), Chapter 199, Statutes of 2008, extended the sunset date on the Lincoln and Rocklin pilot projects from 2009 until January 1, 2012. In doing so, the bill required the cities jointly or individually if only one proceeds, to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2011, on implementation of their NEV transportation plans. This report shall be prepared in consultation with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and local law enforcement and provide specified information on the NEV transportation plans and their implementation. SB 956 (Correa), Chapter 442, Statutes of 2007, allowed Orange County to establish a NEV transportation plan for Ranch Plan Planned Community under essentially the same criteria as the Lincoln and Rocklin pilot projects, except with a sunset date of January 1, 2013. This bill authorizes the County of Amador and the cities of Jackson, Sutter Creek, and Amador City to establish jointly or individually neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plans under the same terms as the pilot projects in Lincoln and Rocklin. Specifically, the bill: 1)Permits the County of Amador and the cities of Jackson, Sutter Creek, and Amador City, to establish by ordinance or resolution a NEV plan for streets under their jurisdictions. Prior to adoption, the county and cities shall receive comment and review on the plan from the Amador County Transportation AB 584 (HUBER) Page 3 Commission and any agency with traffic law enforcement responsibilities in these jurisdictions. The plan must accommodate the travel of NEVs by identifying routes and providing for NEV facilities (separate lanes, trails, street crossings, parking, charging stations, etc.). 2)Requires the jurisdictions that adopt a NEV plan to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2015, in consultation with CHP and local law enforcement. Each report shall describe the plan adopted, evaluate its effectiveness and impact on traffic flows and safety, and make a recommendation to the Legislature on extending the sunset date or expanding the authorization for NEV transportation plans statewide. 3)Sunsets on January 1, 2016. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose . The author introduced this bill so that several communities in her district may create a more sustainable transportation option that encourages NEV use while decreasing fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall energy use within the community. The author reports that a local community organization, Amador Citizens for Transportation Options (ACTO), has been working with Amador County to consider transportation alternatives that will link the small, historic towns of Jackson, Sutter Creek, and Amador City. ACTO has proposed developing a NEV transportation plan similar to those established by Lincoln and Rocklin. This bill would permit implementation of such a plan. 2.Outstanding public safety issues for NEV Plans . There are numerous outstanding public safety issues to be resolved with NEV plans, including: conflicts with bicycles, as noted below; appropriate and universal signage; and the difficulty for a NEV making a left turn on a street with a speed limit in excess of 35 MPH where the NEV must cross traffic in order to move from a dedicated lane on the right hand side of the roadway. In recognition of these, all of the existing statutory authorizations for NEV plans have sunset dates: Orange County's sunsets in 2013, and Lincoln's and Rocklin's sunset AB 584 (HUBER) Page 4 in 2012. This bill includes a 2016 sunset date for the same reason. 3.Conflicts between NEVs and bicycles . Bicycle advocates have expressed concern with NEV plans, because they can result in NEVs operating in bicycle lanes. Specifically, these advocates note that NEVs are too wide for bike lanes, that NEVs should be with other motorized vehicles rather than bikes because of the severity of NEV-bike accidents for bicyclists, and that allowing NEVs in bike lanes leads to the incorrect impression that NEVs may travel on bicycle paths that are separate from roadways. The California Bicycle Coalition opposes this bill because it could lead to bicycles and NEVs sharing a single lane. To address these concerns, the committee or author may wish to amend this bill to clarify that dedicated NEV lanes may not be for joint use of NEVs and bicycles nor may NEV lanes displace bicycle lanes. 4.Opposition . The California Council of the Blind opposes this bill because it does not address the safety issues that NEVs pose for pedestrians and especially for visually impaired pedestrians. NEVs and other electric vehicles emit little sound, and it is vehicle sound on which blind pedestrians rely to detect the presence of vehicles and know when it is safe to cross a street. The council indicates that it will support the bill if it is amended to require NEVs to emit sufficient sound for blind pedestrians to audibly detect the presence of NEVs. RELATED LEGISLATION AB 1781 (Villines) authorizes, until 2016, the City of Fresno to establish a neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan. Status: Also on today's agenda in this committee. Assembly Votes: Floor: 67 - 0 Appr: 17 - 0 Trans: 14 - 0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 9, 2010) SUPPORT: Amador Citizens for Transportation Options (sponsor) Amador County Transportation Commission AB 584 (HUBER) Page 5 OPPOSED: California Bicycle Coalition California Council of the Blind