BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1447
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1447
AUTHOR: Waldron and V. Manuel Pérez
AMENDED: June 12, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 25, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Karen Morrison
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006:
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND: TRAFFIC
SYNCHRONIZATION
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB
32, Health and Safety Code §38500 et seq.):
a) Requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions level and approve a statewide GHG emissions
limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by
2020.
b) Requires ARB to adopt GHG emissions reductions measures
by regulation.
c) Allows ARB to include market-based compliance
mechanisms to reach GHG emission reduction goals.
2) Establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GOV §16428.8)
from money collected through ARB's market-based mechanisms
and prioritizes that the money shall be used to facilitate
the achievement of reductions in GHG emissions.
3) Authorized The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air
Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, as approved by
voters on November 7, 2006 (Proposition 1B). The $19.925
billion bond allocates $250 million to fund traffic light
synchronization projects or other technology-based
AB 1447
Page 2
improvements to improve safety, operations and the effective
capacity of local streets and roads.
This bill :
1) Makes findings and declarations about traffic signal
synchronization as a method to reduce GHG emissions.
2) Provides that traffic signal synchronization projects that
are designed and implemented to achieve cost-effective
reductions in GHG emissions and include specific reduction
targets and metrics to evaluate the project's effect may be
funded under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as sustainable
infrastructure projects.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, this bill "adds
Traffic Signal Synchronization to list of eligible for
funding under AB 32 [?] as it is a proven to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions drastically."
2) Traffic signal synchronization . Traffic signal
synchronization is a traffic planning process designed to
reduce congestion along streets. Traditionally, traffic
lights adhere to a fixed light cycle over a set period of
time. For example, a traffic light may have one complete
light cycle during the day that lasts 90 seconds, and a
second cycle at night that lasts 60 seconds. Although fixed
light cycles efficiently manage consistent traffic flows,
this process is not well suited to managing variable traffic
flow.
Traffic signal synchronization allows for a more variable,
real-time-responsive network of traffic lights that can adapt
to changes in vehicle flow. Proponents of traffic signal
synchronization claim that the process can decrease travel
time, increase travel speed, and reduce vehicle emissions and
fuel consumption.
3) Implementation of traffic signal synchronization . Over the
last 20 years, numerous cities throughout the United States
have implemented traffic signal synchronization as a way to
AB 1447
Page 3
reduce vehicle congestion on streets and cut emissions.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a six
year traffic signal optimization program in Portland, Oregon
prevented the release of 157,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide. The implementation of traffic signal
synchronization in Nashville, Tennessee led to 1-3%
reductions in volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
and carbon monoxides.
Several projects in California have used traffic synchronization
to ease traffic congestion and, ideally, address GHG
emissions.
Los Angeles recently completed the synchronization of all of its
approximately 4,400 traffic signals in the city. The
Automated Traffic Surveillance & Control (ATSAC) system was
initiated in the 1980s in preparation for the 1984 Summer
Olympics but was left uncompleted. Following the passage of
Proposition 1B, Los Angeles received a $150 million
allocation to complete the ATSAC program. Initial results
demonstrated an increase in travel speed by 16% and a
reduction in travel time by 12%. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa estimated that the program would reduce
emissions by 1,000,000 metric tons.
Orange County has implemented two demonstration projects using
Measure M money (generated from a sales transportation tax).
The Measure M Regional Traffic Light Synchronization Program
has awarded $23 million for projects over the last three
years.
4) Limitations of traffic synchronization . The long-term
benefits of traffic signal synchronization are not clear.
Traffic signal synchronization leads to an increase in the
capacity of the road network. Although this may lead to
benefits in travel time, travel speed, and GHG emissions in
the short term or for an individual driver, many studies have
identified that when the capacity of roads are increased,
more people drive.
The Los Angeles traffic signal synchronization project is an
excellent example of this. Although initial results
AB 1447
Page 4
demonstrated improvements in travel speed and travel time,
numerous reports suggest that traffic congestion today is
comparable to congestion prior to the traffic light
synchronization project. According to University of Southern
California professor James E. Moore II, "If we reduce average
travel time in Los Angeles by 20 percent, then we will see
more people traveling."
In addition, traffic synchronization is rarely used in
isolation. Cities employ multiple strategies, including toll
and car pool lanes, bike lanes, and public transportation
development, in order to address congestion and reduce GHG
emissions.
According to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation,
efforts are in place to encourage people to ride bikes, take
commuter rail lines or other public transportation, and move
close enough to work that they can walk. These measures are
intended to address the long-term traffic concerns in Los
Angeles.
5) Use of cap-and-trade funds . Since the ARB cap-and-trade
auction began in 2013, California has received approximately
$734 million in proceeds to the state. Several bills in 2012
provided legislative direction for the expenditure of auction
proceeds, including SB 535 (de León) that requires investment
and use of revenues for disadvantaged communities, and AB
1532 (J. Pérez) that authorized the Department of Finance to
develop an investment plan that identifies feasible and
cost-effective GHG emission reduction investments for
funding. In addition, SB 375 (Steinberg) of 2008 emphasized
the importance of improved land use and transportation for
achieving the goals of AB 32.
The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review has held
several hearings to discuss the long-term use of
cap-and-trade revenues, and has determined that all
investments must lead to a reduction in GHGs, be subject to a
competitive ranking process, and meet all constitutional and
statutory requirements. The Committee identified seven
general categories for funding: transit, affordable housing
and sustainable communities, low carbon transportation,
energy, natural resources and water diversion, high-speed
AB 1447
Page 5
rail, and inter-city rail. The current budget allocates 35%
of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for transit, affordable
housing, and sustainable communities.
6) Arguments in support . According to supporters, "By adding
traffic synchronization to the eligible list of funds under
AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction fund, [?] this important piece
of legislation will decrease traffic congestion and reduce
greenhouse gases." Supporters argue, "There are other ways
to reduce congestions and improve air qualities such as
improving public transit services, promoting alternative mode
of transportation such as adding bike lanes etc.
Unfortunately, these are more of long-term solutions and
require significant capital cost. Adding funding for traffic
signal synchronization projects can provide immediate relief
efficiently to the worsening congestion problem in the Bay
Area."
7) Arguments in opposition . According to opponents, "the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds, created by AB 1532 (J. Pérez,
Statutes of 2012, Chapter 807), broadly authorizes all manner
of funding be considered for any and all investments that
reduce GHG emissions from transportation, housing, energy,
water, manufacturers, and local governments, and therefore
can easily be interpreted to include 'traffic signal
synchronization' programs under existing law."
8) Policy questions .
a) Proven method to reduce GHGs ? Although traffic
synchronization projects have shown some success in
smaller cities, it is not clear that they are a universal
method to lower GHGs.
This raises the question: If the goal of traffic
synchronization is to improve road capacity, and increased
road capacity means more cars can travel, is this an
appropriate strategy to use on its own for reducing GHG
emissions?
In Europe, where GHG targets have been ratified under the
Kyoto Protocol, cities have moved away from traffic
synchronization. Instead, cities are trying to
AB 1447
Page 6
incentivize more environmentally-friendly modes of
transportation, like biking or public transportation, by
disincentivizing driving.
Do traffic light synchronization projects independently
reduce GHGs, or is it necessary to consider the broader
scope of traffic planning? And is it appropriate for the
Legislature to designate individual projects?
b) Is this bill necessary ? Currently, California statute
provides for several broad categories that are appropriate
for cap-and-trade funding. In addition, the Department of
Finance has already developed an investment plan for the
allocation of funds.
The requirements on AB 32 funds already permit the
development of sustainable community strategies. If a
traffic signal synchronization project has demonstrable
benefits for reducing GHG emissions, or if it is part of a
broader effort to address GHG emissions (such as a project
in combination with a bike lane), then it is already
eligible for AB 32 funding. What does this bill
accomplish that is not already provided for under AB 32?
9) Double Referral to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee .
This measure was heard in Senate Transportation & Housing
Committee on June 10, 2014, and passed out of committee with
a vote of 10-0.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Advantec Consulting Engineers
American Society for Civil Engineers
Automobile Club of Southern California
City of Albany, Vice Mayor Joanne Wile
City of Belmont, City Manager
City of Clovis, Dept. of Planning and Development
Services
City of Dublin, City Manager
City of Fairfield, Public Works Department
City of Monterey, City Hall
City of Sacramento, Vice Mayor Jay Schenirer
Econolite
AB 1447
Page 7
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Inc.
PHA Transportation Consultants
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
TJKM Transportation Consultants
1 Individual
OPPOSITION : California Chamber of Commerce
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Tax Payers Association