BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 405
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 405 (Gatto) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUBJECT : High-occupancy Vehicle Lanes: State Routes 134 and
210
SUMMARY : Prohibits the conversion of mixed-flow lanes to
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in Los Angeles County and
requires the conversion of HOV lanes on State Route (SR) 134 and
SR 210 from full-time to part-time operation. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Prohibits the Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, from converting an
existing mixed-flow lane into an HOV lane in Los Angeles
County, unless otherwise required by federal law.
2)Prohibits, notwithstanding any other provision of law, an HOV
lane from being established on SR 134 between SR 170 and SR 5
or on SR 210 between SR 134 and SR 57 unless the HOV lane is
established on a part-time basis; requires any existing HOV
lanes on these routes also to be converted to part-time
operation.
3)Requires Caltrans to report to the Legislature by January 1,
2016, on the impact to traffic by converting these HOV lane
segments to part-time operation.
4)Provides that, on or after May 1, 2015, if Caltrans determines
that part-time operation of these lanes has resulted in an
adverse impact on safety, traffic conditions, or the
environment, it may notify the Legislature of its intent to
reinstate the lanes to 24-hour operation.
5)Encourages Caltrans to introduce off-peak hours on other HOV
lanes in Los Angeles County.
6)Makes provisions requiring the conversion of specific routes
to part-time HOV operation operative on July 1, 2014, and
repeals these same provisions 60 days after Caltrans notifies
the Legislature of its intent to reinstate the lanes to
24-hour operation.
AB 405
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes Caltrans and local authorities, with respect to
highways under their respective jurisdictions, to permit
preferential use of highway lanes for HOVs, under specific
conditions.
2)Requires Caltrans, or the appropriate local entity, to produce
engineering reports that estimate the effect of an HOV lane
prior to establishing the lane. The reports must evaluate the
proposals for safety, congestion, and highway capacity.
3)Vests, under federal law, state departments of transportation
with responsibility for establishing occupancy requirements
for vehicles using HOV lanes, except that the requirement can
be no less than two occupants.
4)Does not specifically prohibit Caltrans from converting a
mixed-flow lane to an HOV lane.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The primary purpose of an HOV lane is to increase the
total number of people moved through a congested corridor by
offering two kinds of incentives: a savings in travel time and a
reliable and predictable travel time. Because HOV lanes carry
vehicles with a higher number of occupants, they may move
significantly more people during congested periods, even when
the number of vehicles that use the HOV lane is lower than on
the adjoining general-purpose lanes.
State and regional transportation agencies are required to
ensure that federally supported highway and transit projects do
not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.
Consequently, when transportation agencies identify a need to
add highway capacity, their options are limited. They often
rely on the addition of HOV lanes, which are generally
considered a viable solution to adding highway capacity in
nonattainment areas-i.e., where air quality is worse than the
national ambient air quality standards.
In northern California, HOV lanes are only operational Monday
through Friday during posted peak congestion hours, for example
between 6 a.m. - 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. All other vehicles
AB 405
Page 3
may use the lanes during off-peak hours. This is referred to as
"part-time" operation.
In southern California, HOV lanes are generally separated from
other lanes by a buffer zone. The HOV lanes are in effect 24
hours a day, 7 days a week--referred to as "full-time"
operation. (SR 14 is an exception. Previous legislation (AB
1871, Runner, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2000) created a
demonstration project to evaluate part-time use of the HOV lanes
on Route 14).
The operational practices vary differently between northern
California versus southern California because of traffic volumes
and commuter patterns in the two regions. Northern California
highways usually experience two weekday congestion periods
during peak morning and afternoon commute hours, followed by a
long period of non-congestion. Using a full-time operation
would leave the HOV lane relatively unoccupied during off-peak
hours and would not constitute an efficient utilization of the
roadway. Southern California normally experiences very long
hours of congestion, typically between six to eleven hours per
day, with short off-peak traffic hours. Part-time operation
under these conditions is generally considered infeasible.
HOV lanes work best where significant roadway congestion during
peak periods occurs. (Optimum HOV lane usage is generally
considered to be about 1650 vehicles per hour. In contrast,
mixed-flow lanes are generally expected optimally to carry
between 1,800 and 2,000 vehicles per hour.) Experience with HOV
lanes from around the country has shown a positive relationship
between ridership and travel time savings, suggesting that, as
congestion grows, the travelers' willingness to carpool or ride
on a bus that uses an HOV lane also grows.
Caltrans reports annually on the use of its HOV system. In its
2011 HOV report, Caltrans reported that the peak-hour volume in
the SR 134 HOV lane was 860 vehicles, well below the optimum
volume of 1,650 vehicles per hour. In the SR 210 HOV lane,
Caltrans reported the peak-hour usage at 1,511 vehicles, very
near optimum capacity; data indicate, however, that the HOV lane
usage drops substantially after the 6:00 p.m. hour.
Regarding the conversion of mixed-flow lanes to HOV lanes, it is
Caltrans' practice to avoid such a conversion. This practice
stems from a failed attempt at this type of conversion on the
Interstate 10 Santa Monica Freeway in 1976. On that project, an
AB 405
Page 4
existing mixed-flow lane in each direction of the freeway was
converted to an HOV lane. While the lane was successful in
terms of person movement, the impacts on the remaining
mixed-flow lanes were quite severe as the capacity of the
freeway was reduced. The project was challenged in federal
court and, after 21 weeks of operation, a judge ordered the
lanes to be restored to mixed-flow operation on the basis that
Caltrans had not done the appropriate public outreach required
as part of the environmental review process.
Despite its general attempts to avoid these types of
conversions, Caltrans reports that there have, in fact, been a
few locations where conversion from a mixed-flow lane to an HOV
lane has indeed occurred--in spot locations where there was a
need for HOV system continuity and where the cost to add a lane
was prohibitive. Such conversions would be prohibited under
this bill.
Suggested amendments: The bill authorizes Caltrans, in the
event that part-time operation of the HOV lane has an adverse
impact on safety, traffic conditions, or the environment, to
make such a determination and then notify the Legislature of its
intent to reinstate full-time HOV operation. The bill does
not, but should, grant the department the authority to actually
restore the HOV lanes to full-time operation, upon these
conditions having been met.
Previous legislation: AB 2200 (Ma) of 2012, would have
suspended the HOV lane on eastbound Interstate 80 in the San
Francisco Bay Area during the morning commute. That bill was
passed by the Legislature but ultimately vetoed by Governor
Brown. In his veto message, the Governor stated, "Encouraging
carpooling is important to reduce pollution and make more
efficient use of our highways. This bill goes in a wrong
direction."
AB 1871 (Runner) Chapter 337, Statutes of 2000, prohibited,
until June 1, 2002, HOV lanes from being constructed on SR 14
between the City of Santa Clarita and the City of Palmdale
unless the lane was established as an HOV lane only during the
hours of heavy commuter traffic. That bill also required the
Legislative Analyst Office to report on the traffic impact of
the part-time HOV lanes. That report found that limiting the
HOV lane to part-time operation had "essentially no effect on
traffic congestion, either positive or negative."
AB 405
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Trucking Association
Opposition
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093