BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 1706
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: eng
VERSION: 6/26/12
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
SUBJECT:
Transit bus weights
DESCRIPTION:
This bill makes legal transit buses that are over current state
bus weight limits, permits transit operators to purchase new
overweight buses only with the concurrence of the local
jurisdictions on whose roads the buses will travel, and
beginning in 2019, imposes a new weight limit equal to the limit
in federal law at that time.
ANALYSIS:
For vehicles that travel on public streets, roads, and highways
(highways), existing law generally limits the gross weight that
wheels on any one axle of any vehicle can impose on the highway
to 20,000 pounds. Buses of any type, however, may impose a
gross vehicle weight on any one axle of up to 20,500 pounds.
This bill :
1.Exempts existing transit buses and new buses for which a
transit provider initiates procurement by January 1, 2013 from
the limit on bus weight in state law.
2.From January 1, 2013 until January 1, 2019, prohibits a public
transit agency or contractor who operates a public transit
system from procuring a new transit bus with an unladen weight
over 21,000 pounds and a gross weight over 24,000 pounds on
any one axel, unless every city and county through which the
overweight bus would travel approves the procurement or
operation of the bus.
3.Beginning January 1, 2019, sets transit bus weight limits in
California to match those in federal law, which currently are
an unladen weight limit of 21,000 pounds per axle and a gross
AB 1706 (ENG) Page 2
weight limit of 24,000 pounds per axle. If the federal
government changes its bus weight limits, which apply on the
federal highway system, then the bill automatically adjusts
the limits in California law to match the new federal weight
limits for transit buses.
4.Exempts from all weight limits transit buses operated in
compliance with state and federal air quality regulations
requiring a demonstration program.
5.Requires a state agency, when it is promulgating regulations
that affect vehicle weights, to take into account the vehicle
weight impacts and the ability of manufacturers and operators
to comply with vehicle weight limit laws. For example, this
would require the Air Resources Board to consider the impact
an air quality regulation it adopts would have on bus weights.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . State law since 1975 has mandated that the weight on
any single axle of a transit bus may not exceed 20,500 pounds.
Due to numerous state and federal mandates, including
Americans with Disability Act requirements and mandated
emissions reduction equipment, transit buses today may often
exceed that weight, especially when carrying a large number of
passengers.
As a result, some local police departments have cited transit
buses for violation of the Vehicle Code weight limits. Merely
relying on the current procedures in state law for overweight
vehicles -- paying fines resulting from citations or paying
fees and administering thousands of annual overweight vehicle
permits on a city-by-city basis -- will prove costly and time
consuming for transit agencies and other local governments
statewide. Moreover, such an approach would continue to
ignore the underlying problem: the Vehicle Code limit was
created more than 35 years ago and simply does not contemplate
today's operating environments or legal and regulatory
requirements.
The author points out that California's public transit systems
carry thousands of passengers each day, providing mobility to
Californians from all walks of life. Additionally, he notes
that public transit is helping to achieve the goals of AB 32
and SB 375 by reducing car trips, thereby reducing congestion
and greenhouse gas emissions and providing better air quality
AB 1706 (ENG) Page 3
for California's communities. He introduced this bill
because, with the important role that public transit plays,
the state needs state and local government stakeholders to
collaboratively develop a balanced solution to the problem of
overweight buses.
2.Local government concerns . The League of Cities and the
California State Association of Counties (CSAC) have expressed
opposition to this bill due to the significant impact
overweight vehicles have on roads. Local government
representatives note that they designed and constructed these
roads based on the vehicle weights limits permitted under
existing California law. They acknowledge the importance of
transit in their communities, but note that they face a
staggering funding shortfall for the maintenance and
preservation of the local streets and roads system, citing
their recent needs assessment showing a nearly $80 billion
shortfall over the next ten years.
The League and CSAC are concerned about the problem of
overweight buses persisting even with this bill and say there
is a need to figure out how to transition to lighter buses.
They also recommend, as recent amendments do, that the bill
include a requirement that state agencies consider the impact
on bus weights and related pavement wear when making a new
rule affecting those weights.
3.Author's amendment . Since the author amended this bill on
June 26th, he and the sponsor have discovered that many
transit providers find provisions in the bill governing the
acquisition of new buses between January 1, 2013 and January
1, 2019 to be unworkable. They are therefore proposing an
amendment to replace that language (described in #2 under
"this bill" above) with an amendment allowing a transit agency
during those six years to replace any bus in its fleet with a
new bus that can be as heavy as its heaviest bus.
This amendment, it seems, would add to, not lessen, the
problem of overweight buses on California roads. Because a
transit provider could replace its lightest bus with a new bus
weighing as much as its heaviest bus during the next six years
and because buses have lifespan well over 12 years, this would
ensure that California's transit bus fleet would be
substantially heavier in 2030 than it is today. This seems to
move in the opposite direction of the balanced solution that
the proponents seek.
AB 1706 (ENG) Page 4
The cities and the counties oppose this amendment because it
would reward those transit agencies that have disregarded
current law the most by allowing them to continue purchasing
buses that far exceed the legal weight. In addition, they
point out that the enforcement of these weight limits would be
nearly impossible. The City of Lakewood opposes the bill for
these reasons.
4.2019 is a long time from now . Ultimately, the goal of this
bill is to decrease actual bus weights from where they are
today over some transition period. This bill proposes a
rather long transition period from now until 2019 and, with
the author's amendment above, a rather abrupt transition in
bus procurements beginning in 2019. Given the lifespan of
buses, this may be too long for the state's roads to endure
overweight buses absent much more significant maintenance
funds than exist today.
5.Demonstration program buses . This bill exempts from all
weight limits transit buses operated in compliance with state
and federal air quality regulations that require a
demonstration program. The bill also requires state agencies,
including primarily those imposing such regulations, to take
into account vehicle weight when promulgating regulations that
could affect bus weights. It seems that the exemption for
demonstration buses is contrary to this requirement on state
agencies, and, in any case, the bill forever exempts current
buses in an air quality demonstration program from state bus
weight limits. The committee may wish to amend the bill to
delete the exemption from all weight limits for buses in a
demonstration program pursuant to air quality regulations.
6.Just amended . This author significantly amended this bill on
June 26th, but the entities with positions shown below, with
the exception of the sponsor, took those positions on the
prior version of this bill. Some shown in support may,
therefore, no longer be in support or may only support the
bill with the author's proposed amendment described in comment
#3 above.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 64 - 8
Appr: 12 - 5
Trans: 12 - 0
AB 1706 (ENG) Page 5
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 20,
2012)
SUPPORT: California Transit Association (sponsor)
Arcata and Mad River Transit System
El Dorado National - California
Foothill Transit
Golden Empire Transit District
Golden Gate Bridge Highways and Transportation
District
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Long Beach Transit
Monterey-Salinas Transit
North American Bus Industries
Orange County Transportation Authority
Sacramento Regional Transit District
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
City of Torrance
OPPOSED: California State Association of Counties
City of Lakewood
League of California Cities