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