BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1781
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 22, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 1781 (Villines) - As Introduced: February 9, 2010
SUBJECT : Neighborhood electric vehicles: City of Fresno
SUMMARY : Authorizes the City of Fresno (City) to establish a
neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) transportation plan.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States that the legislative intent in authorizing the City to
establish a NEV transportation is to further the vision of a
creating a sustainable development.
2)Defines key terms.
3)Authorizes the City to adopt a NEV transportation plan.
4)Provides that the transportation plan may include the use of a
state highway, or crossing of the highway, upon approval of
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
5)Requires that the plan identify NEV routes, provide for NEV
facilities (separate lanes, trails, street crossings, parking,
charging stations, signage, etc.), and establish minimum
general design criteria for separated NEV lanes.
6)Requires the City, if it adopts a NEV transportation plan, to
develop minimum design criteria, to work with Caltrans to
develop uniform traffic control devices, and to adopt minimum
safety requirements for NEVs (consistent with federal
regulations) and NEV operators.
7)Specifically requires NEV operators to possess a valid
California driver's license and comply with established
financial liability requirements.
8)Requires the City, if it adopts a NEV transportation plan, to
submit a report to the Legislature on or before November 1,
2014, describing the plan and evaluating the effectiveness of
the NEV transportation plan, including its impact on traffic
flows and safety.
AB 1781
Page 2
9)Exempts NEVs in the plan area from the prohibition of NEVs on
streets with speed limits in excess of 35 miles per hour
(mph).
EXISTING LAW :
10)Defines a "neighborhood electric vehicle" as a motor vehicle
that has four wheels, can reach speeds of 25 mph, and has a
gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds.
11)Generally, subjects drivers of NEVs to the same laws as
drivers as of other vehicles.
12)Provides that NEVs qualify for relaxed federal motor vehicle
safety standards that require: three-point seat belts, running
lights, headlights, brake lights, reflectors, rear view
mirrors, and turn signals. Doors are optional.
13)Prohibits NEVS from being operated on any roadway with a
speed limit in excess of 35 mph, except in areas where a NEV
transportation plan has been adopted. Areas specifically
authrorized to adopt a NEV transportation plan are the Cities
of Lincoln and Rocklin in Placer County and the Ranch Plan
Planned Community in Orange County.
14)Requires owners of registered NEVs to comply with financial
responsibility laws and requires NEV operators to possess a
driver's license.
15) Does not require NEVs to be registered.
16)Requires the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin, if they adopt a
NEV transportation plan, to report to the Legislature by
January 11, 2011, on their individual plans, their
effectiveness, and their impact on traffic flows and safety;
also requires the cities to make a recommendation to the
Legislature on extending the sunset date or expanding the
authorization for NEV transportation plans statewide.
17)Authorizes until January 1, 2013, the County of Orange, by
ordinance or resolution, to adopt a NEV transportation plan
for the Ranch Plan Planned Community, provided the plan is
reviewed by local law enforcement and the Orange County
Transportation Authority. A report to the Legislature is
required by November 1, 2011.
AB 1781
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee's analysis of AB 584 (Huber), a nearly identical bill:
1)Minor, probably absorbable, costs to Caltrans to:
a) Review and approve any component of the proposed NEV
transportation plan that allows use of any state highway or
any crossing of the highway; and,
b) Consult with local agencies adopting a NEV plan in their
preparation of the report required by this bill.
2)Minor, probable absorbable, costs to the California Highway
Patrol to consult with local agencies adopting a NEV plan in
their preparation of the report required by this bill.
COMMENTS : The author introduced this bill because existing law
prohibits NEVs from being operated on any roadway with a speed
limit in excess of 35 mph unless an exemption has been granted
by the Legislature, as has been granted with the before
mentioned pilot project areas.
Existing law enacted in 2004, under AB 2353 (Leslie) Chapter
422, Statutes of 2004, and subsequently extended by AB 2963
(Gaines) Chapter 199, Statutes of 2008, provided the cities of
Lincoln and Rocklin in Placer County an exemption, until January
1, 2012, to the restriction that NEVs must be operated only on
roads with a 35 mph or less speed limit, if a NEV transportation
plan was adopted.
The City of Lincoln adopted its plan in August 2006 and
submitted its report to the Legislature in 2009, while the City
of Rocklin adopted its plan in 2007 and had its report to the
Legislature submittal date extended until January 1, 2011.
In its required report to the Legislature, the City of Lincoln
suggests that "while a large majority of the proposed plan is
pending implementation of signage and stripping, it is meeting
its goal of maintaining safety and acceptable levels of traffic
while increasing mobility to its residents." The report
findings indicate that the City of Lincoln Police Department and
the California Highway Patrol (CHP) have not been aware of NEVs
being involved in incidents, crashes, or violations. Both
AB 1781
Page 4
entities perceived NEVs to be safe in areas were the
transportation plan had been implemented. The report points out
that traffic patterns throughout Lincoln do not appear to be
impeded and traditional motorists feel safe around NEVs,
although respondents did feel that NEVs slightly decreased their
speeds.
Conversely, NEV users registered a higher degree of comfortably
with paths restricted only to NEVs rather than with roads that
shared lanes with automobiles. Sixteen percent of bicyclist
respondents indicated a problem with sharing space with NEVs
users in mixed lanes. With regard to signage and pavement
markings, most NEV users, traditional motorists, and bicyclists
confirm that the current signage and stripping is easy to read
and understand.
Overall, the report findings recommend that implementation
should not only continue in the original pilot cities but that
similar programs can be successful statewide. The report
underscores that a "more comprehensive analysis should be
conducted when more of the approved NEV transportation plan had
been implemented to better evaluate the potential safety
concerns that may exist on higher speed facilities."
It is important to point out that while the original pilot
project city reports to the Legislature were pending, additional
legislation was signed into law granting similar authority.
Specifically, SB 956, Correa, Chapter 442, Statutes of 2007,
authorized until January 1, 2013, the County of Orange to adopt
a NEV transportation plan for the Ranch Plan Planned Community.
This bill would grant yet another NEV transportation plan while
results of the City and Rocklin and the Ranch Plan Planned
Community are still pending. However, early indications suggest
that the results will continue to be positive.
Writing in opposition to this bill, the California Council of
the Blind believes "the introduction of neighborhood electric
vehicles will endanger the lives of blind and visually impaired
pedestrians." The Council further states that "No new NEV
transportation plans should be approved until such safety
standards are in place."
This is not the first time that concerns for the impact of quiet
AB 1781
Page 5
vehicles on visually impaired pedestrians has been raised. In
2008, Senator Lowenthal introduced SB 1174 that would have
required the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission to convene a Quiet Motorized Road Vehicle and Safe
Mobility Committee comprised of representatives from specified
entities to research, identify, and make recommendations to the
commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road
vehicles, regardless of engine type or configuration, emit sound
sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are
blind or visually impaired.
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the measure stating: "Currently,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Society
of Automotive Engineers International, and the automotive
industry are collaborating on research to address this problem.
Since the State of California has no authority over vehicle
design, except for purposes of controlling air pollution
emissions, and there is value in creating conforming standards
throughout the nation, this issue should be handled at the
federal level."
Although a technical report on this research by the Society of
Automotive Engineers was due in late 2008, the report has yet to
be released.
Pending legislation: AB 584 (Huber), would allow the County of
Amador and the cities of Jackson, Sutter Creek and Amador City
to establish a NEV transportation plan. This bill passed the
Assembly Transportation Committee unanimously. It is currently
in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
Previous legislation : AB 2963 (Gaines) Chapter 199, Statutes of
2008, extended until 2012, a pilot project in the cities of
Lincoln and Rocklin under which these cities may adopt NEV
plans.
SB 956 (Correa) Chapter 442, Statutes of 2007, authorized until
January 1, 2013, the County of Orange to adopt a NEV
transportation plan for the Ranch Plan Planned Community. A
report to the Legislature is required by November 1, 2011.
AB 2353 (Leslie) Chapter 422, Statutes of 2004, authorized an
exemption to the prohibition on NEV operational speed limits for
the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin and established criteria for
the development of NEVs transportation plans.
AB 1781
Page 6
Author's amendments: The author has agreed to take two
amendments suggested by the committee:
1)The bill requires the City of Fresno, if it adopts a NEV
transportation plan, to develop design criteria for the
development, planning, and construction of separated NEV
lanes, "if the plan envisions separated NEV lanes." Because
NEVs should not be sharing high-speed roads with other motor
vehicles, the NEV transportation plan should include
provisions for separated lanes and this phrase should be
struck. The specific amendment, then, will read:
On page 4, beginning at line 17, strike the phrase, "if the plan
envisions separated NEV lanes."
2)Although early indications suggest that the pilot programs
already authorized in existing law are having positive
results, authorization for an additional NEV transportation
plan should be contingent upon the final results of the
original pilot programs. Consequently, the NEV transportation
plan authorized for the City of Fresno should have a sunset
date to allow the Legislature the opportunity to review the
results of the studies prior to authorizing NEV use
indefinitely. The author has agreed to a sunset date of
January 1, 2016.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The Honorable Ashley Swearengin, Mayor, City of Fresno
Opposition
California Council of the Blind
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093