BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2200|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2200
Author: Ma (D), et al.
Amended: 8/23/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-1, 7/3/12
AYES: Gaines, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Rubio, Simitian,
Wyland
NOES: DeSaulnier
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/6/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-16, 5/29/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicles: high-occupancy vehicle lanes
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill eliminates, until January 1, 2020, or
as specified, the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the
Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor within the San Francisco Bay
Area during the morning reverse commute time period.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/12 permit the Director of
the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to sunset this
legislation before January 1, 2020 if he or she determines
that the HOV lanes have been converted to high-occupancy
CONTINUED
AB 2200
Page
2
toll lanes, consistent with current plans of the San
Francisco Bay Area's metropolitan planning organization,
and add Senator LaMalfa as a coauthor.
ANALYSIS : Existing law permits Caltrans or local
transportation agencies to designate highway lanes as HOV
lanes, granting access only to vehicles with more than one
occupant. Prior to establishing these HOV lanes, Caltrans
or the transportation agency must conduct traffic
engineering studies to determine the effect these lanes may
have on the highway's safety, congestion, and capacity.
Federal law vests state departments of transportation with
the responsibility for establishing occupancy requirements
for vehicles accessing HOV lanes. In the Bay Area, HOV
lane location and occupancy decisions are made jointly
between Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), and the Federal Highway Administration.
This bill:
1. Eliminates the HOV lanes in the I-80 corridor within
MTC's jurisdiction during the morning reverse commute
time period. This bill defines the morning reverse
commute time period on I-80 as 5 a.m. to 10 a.m.
2. Sunsets on January 1, 2020, or until the Director of
Caltrans determine that the lanes designated for HOV
have been converted to high-occupancy toll lanes, and
files that determination with the Secretary of State.
Comments
This bill grants access to the HOV lane to any vehicle
during the reverse commute on I-80 from the Carquinez
Bridge to the Bay Bridge. The author's office contends
this is necessary to make the underutilized HOV lane
available to all drivers and relieve congestion in the rest
of the lanes travelling that direction. Caltrans states
that the ideal capacity of HOV lanes is between 1,600 and
1,650 vehicles per hour. According to the author's office,
in 2002 only 200 to 700 vehicles accessed the HOV lanes per
hour during the reverse commute time period. Further, a
Legislative Analyst's Office report from January 2000
CONTINUED
AB 2200
Page
3
stated that HOV lanes statewide were only operating at
two-thirds capacity. Relying on this data, the author's
office concludes that drivers have not fully utilized these
HOV lanes and therefore eliminating the HOV access
requirement will not adversely impact HOV lane users. At
the same time, this bill will relieve congestion in the
other lanes.
Caltrans recent traffic study . In May 2012, Caltrans
collected travel time data on the Alameda County segment of
I-80, because it historically suffers from the most
congestion in the corridor. Based on this traffic study,
Caltrans draws two conclusions. First, eliminating the
eastbound HOV restriction during the reverse commute period
is not expected to have any impact on congestion, because
both the HOV and regular lanes currently operate at or near
the speed limit with little or no delays. Second, Caltrans
concludes that eliminating the westbound HOV restriction
during the reverse commute period will result in adverse
traffic impacts; the overall delay for all westbound
vehicles would not be improved while higher-occupant
vehicles would experience significantly more delay. These
findings suggest that changes made by this bill will not
result in congestion relief in either direction.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time
costs of up to $175,000 in 2012-13 (State Highway Account)
to replace 45 barrier-mounted and ground-mounted signs and
three overhead HOV signs, including costs for traffic
control measures, and a public information campaign to
alert motorists of the change. Equivalent one-time costs
in 2019-20 to replace signs when the statute sunsets.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/12)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Trucking Association
West Coast Aggregates, Inc.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/12)
CONTINUED
AB 2200
Page
4
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Solano Transportation Authority
Transform
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The West Coast Aggregates, Inc.
states in support, "High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes play
an essential role for traffic demand management and for
improving overall mobility by increasing
persons-throughput. The Legislature intended HOV lanes to
reduce congestion, improve air quality, promote
ridesharing, and maximize the capacity of California's
highways.
"While increasing highway utilization is a commendable
goal, the HOV 3+ passenger requirement in an attempt to
achieve the goal has not been flexible enough to achieve
full utilization. Data collected by the Department of
Transportation on HOV Volumes from 1999 to present from the
I-80 Corridor Carquinez Bridge to Bay Bridge Plaza has
shown that the HOV lane is not fully utilized, particularly
during the reverse commute.
"In 2002, the HOV lane carried nearly 1,700 vehicles during
the morning peak-hour commute going Westbound, but only
carried 199 vehicles during the morning commute going
Eastbound. In addition, a 2000 LAO study on HOV lanes
cited that HOV lanes were only operating at 2/3 of their
capacity and that CalTrans should be more flexible in
adjusting the hours of operating of HOV lanes."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents of this bill have
raised a number of concerns. First, opponents argue that
eliminating HOV lanes in the corridor will effectively
eliminate the ability of transit systems to more quickly
and reliably transport riders to and from their
destinations. This, in turn, will likely diminish or
remove the incentive for many to choose transit. In
CONTINUED
AB 2200
Page
5
addition, local transportation agencies are concerned that,
while this corridor may not currently be heavily utilized
at all times, this bill does not take into account the
anticipated increase of traffic over the next two decades.
Some studies predict traffic in the off-peak direction will
increase along the I-80 corridor as much as 43 percent over
the next 20 years.
Finally, opponents suggest that, due to their complicated
and controversial nature, changes to HOV occupancy
requirements and operational periods should be based upon
detailed technical analysis conducted by traffic operations
experts and should be well-vetted with affected
stakeholders. The local transportation agencies
representing many drivers directly affected by this bill
indicate that the author did not discuss this proposal with
them nor attempt to gain their support. Opponents are
concerned about the precedent this bill would set for the
Legislature to make uninformed decisions involving regional
transportation systems.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-16, 5/29/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cook, Davis,
Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gatto, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Roger Hernández, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, John A. Pérez
NOES: Beall, Buchanan, Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Gorell, Harkey, Hayashi, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nielsen, Norby, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Cedillo, Chesbro, Dickinson,
Fletcher, Gordon, Hall, Hueso, Skinner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada
JJA:dn 8/27/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 2200
Page
6
CONTINUED