BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 779 Hearing Date: 8/25/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Cristina Garcia | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |8/19/2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Alison Dinmore | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Transportation: congestion management program DIGEST: This bill deletes the traffic level of service standards (LOS) as an element of a congestion management program and would delete related requirements, including the requirement that a city or county prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Requires congestion management programs to be used by a regional transportation planning agency (regional agency) to meet federal requirements for a congestion management system and incorporated into the congestion management system. 2)Requires a congestion management program to be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that has an urbanized area. Urbanized area means the same as the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population. 3)Requires a congestion management program to include the following elements: a) Traffic LOS standards established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the regional agency, including at a minimum all state highways and roadways. AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 2 of ? Requires that in no case shall LOS standards fall below a specific level or the current level. When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established LOS standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted. b) A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives. c) A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots. d) A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. e) A seven-year capital improvement program to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods to mitigate regional transportation impacts. 1)Requires the congestion management programs to be submitted to the regional agency and for the regional agency to evaluate the consistency between the program and the regional transportation plan. 2)Requires the regional agency to monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The regional agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including but not limited to: a) Consistency with LOS standards; b) Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including the costs associated with mitigating these impacts; and c) Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan when AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 3 of ? highways and roadway LOS standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. 1)A local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. 2)The analysis for the cause of the deficiency shall exclude: a) Interregional travel; b) Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system; c) Freeway ramp metering; d) Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies; e) Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing; and f) Traffic generated by high-density residential developments located within one-fourth mile of a fixed-rail passenger station and traffic generated by mixed-use developments located within one-fourth mile of a fixed-rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed-use development is used for high-density residential housing. 1)Defines "infill opportunity zone" as a specific area, designated by a city or county, that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is defined in existing law, except that it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. A high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with a fixed bus route service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 2)Defines "level of service standard" as a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system, which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan. AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 4 of ? This urgency bill: 1)Deletes the traffic LOS standards as an element of a congestion management program and would delete related requirements, including the requirement that a city or county prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS are not maintained. 2)Requires the performance element measures include greenhouse gas emission reductions. 3)Removes the requirement that an infill opportunity zone be within one-fourth mile from a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. 4)Adds to the list of exclusions from a deficiency analysis: a) Traffic generated by any transit priority project; and b) Improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation. 1)States that nothing shall be interpreted to require a local agency to implement improvements to reduce delay at intersections or roadway segments that the local agency determines would impede the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, existing law mandates that congestion management plans designate minimum LOS for certain roadways. Additionally, local governments that fail to maintain minimum LOS risk losing sales tax dollars. As a result, those LOS are often required in local general plans. Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) set in motion a process to remove LOS from the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While this change moved California closer to achieving its environmental goals, it requires infill developers to conduct two different analyses for new projects: one using LOS under congestion management AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 5 of ? law and another requiring the use of a different metric under CEQA, likely vehicle miles traveled (VMT). According to the author, these duplicative analyses are problematic because they increase the costs for urban infill projects. These increased costs are associated with traffic mitigation, high-rise construction, cost of land acquisition, seismic and sea-level inundation risk, and often increased community input. This bill will align congestion management law with the recent changes in CEQA law to allow congestion management agencies to use a non-LOS metric for transportation planning and eliminate the need for duplicative analyses. 2)Congestion Management Program. In 1990, the Legislature established the Congestion Management Program, which requires congestion management agencies in areas with a population of 50,000 to measure minimum capacity on designated roadways using the LOS metric. LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed through a letter grade ranging from A to F (A indicating free-flowing traffic and F indicating a breakdown of flow). Because LOS standards are tied to sales tax dollars, LOS standards are often found in local general plans and congestion management plans. Additionally, existing law requires minimum LOS for certain roadways. If an intersection falls below a threshold, the regional agency must develop a deficiency plan to improve the LOS through mitigation, such as expanding roads and adding lanes, to accommodate more vehicles and allow traffic to move more freely. 3)Encouraging infill development and state GHG goals. California's climate change laws seek to reduce transportation emissions by reducing the amount that people need to drive. Congestion management law, however, often encourages more driving. This is because LOS considers delay experienced by drivers, not passengers, including public transportation passengers. For example, a bus is given the same weight as a passenger vehicle in a traffic study. Another example is that if a project in question includes a bus-only or bicycle lane, the traffic engineer conducting the study would expect increased delay for passenger vehicles. The result of an LOS calculation would indicate that the project degrades LOS even if the project is a more efficient use of road space and would promote less-polluting uses. Furthermore, mitigating adverse impacts of LOS standards often results in more driving by widening roads to accommodate more cars, at the expense of AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 6 of ? alternative transportstion modes. Additionally, LOS has been identified as a barrier to infill development and transit-oriented development. A traffic study using LOS might find that sprawl developments perform well (i.e., traffic flows more freely) because there are fewer cars around. An urban infill project, however, might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already congested condition, even though residents and consumers associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars for their transportation needs. Mitigation efforts to increase traffic flow, such as expanding roads, may not be possible in urban areas and may therefore prevent a project from moving forward. This bill would allow local governments to address congestion using measures of effectiveness other than physical road capacity, which would encourage other modes of travel such as biking and transit and permit infill development where it otherwise would have been precluded. 4)Conforming to recent CEQA changes. CEQA requires new projects to analyze potential environmental changes created by the proposed project. Transportation impacts analyzed under CEQA have typically focused on the impact of projects on traffic flow using LOS. SB 743, however, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts to LOS under CEQA, such as VMT. Developers are still required, however, under congestion management law to prepare an LOS study. This means that developers may be preparing two separate studies to satisfy two separate legal requirements. This bill would provide greater flexibility for the developer to prepare one analysis, such as a VMT analysis, to meet the requirements of CEQA and congestion management law. Related Legislation: AB 1098 (Bloom, 2015) - deleted the traffic LOS as an element of a congestion management program and would revise the requirements for other elements of a congestion management program by, among other things, requiring performance measures to include vehicle miles traveled, air emissions, and bicycle, transit, and pedestrian mode share. This bill was held in the Assembly Transportation Committee. AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 7 of ? SB 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) - requires OPR to adopt CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Thursday, August 20, 2015.) SUPPORT: California Infill Federation OPPOSITION: None received -- END --