BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 210


                                                                      Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          210 (Gatto)


          As Introduced  February 2, 2015


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Transportation  |15-0  |Frazier, Achadjian,   |                    |
          |                |      |Baker, Campos, Chu,   |                    |
          |                |      |Daly, Dodd, Eduardo   |                    |
          |                |      |Garcia, Gomez, Kim,   |                    |
          |                |      |Linder, Medina,       |                    |
          |                |      |Melendez, Nazarian,   |                    |
          |                |      |O'Donnell             |                    |
          |                |      |                      |                    |
          |                |      |                      |                    |
          |                |      |                      |                    |
          |                |      |                      |                    |
          |                |      |                      |                    |
          |----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |16-0  |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |      |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |      |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                    |
          |                |      |Gallagher,            |                    |
          |                |      |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |      |Gordon, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |      |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, |                    |
          |                |      |Wagner, Wood          |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 









                                                                       AB 210


                                                                      Page  2






          SUMMARY:  Requires the conversion of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)  
          lanes on State Route (SR) 134 and SR 210 from full-time to  
          part-time operation.  Specifically, this bill:  
          1)Prohibits, notwithstanding any other law [except if the  
            California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) makes a  
            specific determination, described below], an HOV lane from being  
            established on SR 134 between SR 170 and SR 210, or on SR 210  
            between SR 134 and SR 57 unless the HOV lane is established on a  
            part-time basis.
          2)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,  
            2018, on the impact to traffic by converting these HOV lane  
            segments to part-time operation. 


          4)Provides that, on or after May 1, 2017, 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 Assembly Committee on  
            Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation and  
            Housing of its intent to reinstate the lanes to 24-hour  
            operation; thereafter, specifically authorizes Caltrans to  
            reinstate full-time operation of the HOV lanes. 


          5)Encourages Caltrans to introduce part-time operations 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, 2016, and repeals  
            these same provisions 60 days after Caltrans notifies the  
            Legislature of its intent to reinstate the lanes to 24-hour  
            operation; requires Caltrans to post the date that the  
            Legislature receives the notice on the department's web site. 








                                                                       AB 210


                                                                      Page  3







          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, one-time special fund costs to Caltrans of around  
          $482,000 for sign replacement - 35 overhead signs at $10,000 each  
          and 132 ground- or barrier-mounted signs at $1,000 each.  Similar  
          costs would be incurred if the HOV lanes had to be reverted back  
          to full-time operation.  Costs for the legislative report are  
          minor and absorbable [State Highway Account].


          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. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.  All other vehicles  
          may use the lanes during off-peak hours.  This is referred to as  
          "part-time" operation.  










                                                                       AB 210


                                                                      Page  4





          In Southern California, HOV lanes are generally separated from  
          other lanes by a buffer zone.  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 SR 14.  Caltrans continues to  
          operate part-time HOV lanes on a portion of SR 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.  Full-time operation would leave the HOV  
          lane relatively unoccupied during off-peak hours and would not  
          constitute an efficient use 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 1,650 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  
          2014 HOV report, Caltrans reported that the average peak-hour  
          volume in the SR 134 HOV lane was 1,157 vehicles, notably below  
          the optimum volume of 1,650 vehicles per hour.  In the SR 210 HOV  
          lane, Caltrans reported the average peak-hour usage at 1,281  








                                                                       AB 210


                                                                      Page  5





          vehicles.  Data for both highways indicate that the HOV lane usage  
          drops substantially after the 6 p.m. hour.  


          The author introduced this bill because "motorists who do not  
          qualify for the carpool lane are frequently caught in  
          bumper-to-bumper traffic at odd hours of the night while carpool  
          lanes may be underutilized.  This bill would offer an opportunity  
          for flexibility, especially in areas where people drive the  
          freeways at all hours of the day."  



          Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of  
          this bill.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
                          Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093  FN:  
          0000613