BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1250 Hearing Date: 7/14/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bloom |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |7/6/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Randy Chinn |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Vehicles: buses: gross axle weight
DIGEST: This bill establishes a declining maximum unladen
weight per axle for buses.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Limits the gross weight of buses to 20,500 pounds per axle.
2)Prohibits California from enforcing a weight limit of less
than 24,000 pounds per axle for buses travelling on the
federal interstate highway system.
3)Allows, until January 1, 2016, a public transit system to
procure a bus whose weight exceeds 20,500 pounds per axle if
1) the new bus weighs less per axle than the bus it is
replacing, or 2) the new buses are part of a new fleet class,
provided that the governing board of the public transit system
makes a finding that the new fleet class is necessary to
address a need in a new or existing market.
This bill:
1)Exempts from the 20,500 pound weight limitation buses procured
from a solicitation issued prior to January 1, 2016.
2)Establishes a declining maximum unladen weight per axle
AB 1250 (Bloom) Page 2 of ?
beginning at 25,000 pounds per axle for buses procured through
a solicitation issued prior to January 1, 2018, and ending at
22,000 pounds for buses procured through a solicitation issued
on or after January 1, 2022.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, transit buses play an
integral role in California's Transportation infrastructure.
While cities, planning agencies, transit agencies, and bus
manufacturers do not all agree on the solution for overweight
buses, it is essential that transit systems continue to
operate, and transit agencies must be allowed to continue to
procure transit vehicles if the need arises. Stakeholders
have convened with the goal of crafting a long-term solution
that works for all parties. The hope is that some agreement
will be reached this year that will settle the axle weight
issue once and for all, an agreement that could eventually be
amended into this bill.
2)The time has come. There have been legislative attempts to
deal with overweight buses since 2012, and each has resulted
in stop-gap measures which deferred any solution. In the
meantime, more heavy buses have joined the transit fleets,
increasing the damage that will inevitably occur as these
vehicles use our deteriorating roads and bridges for years to
come. As the state grapples for solutions to funding road
maintenance and repair, it makes little sense to ignore this
longstanding problem.
3)Technology requirements are part of the problem. California's
air pollution and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals have
resulted in alternatively fueled powertrains for buses, such
as electric and compressed natural gas. Improving efficiency
in transit operations often means using larger buses and
optimizing routes so that buses run full. Both of these
policies result in buses which are so heavy that they can
damage streets and prematurely wear bridges and overpasses.
As policymakers consider new technologies and efficiency
improvements, they'd be wise to also consider the effects of
their decisions on the state's transportation infrastructure.
Fixing the states deteriorating roads and bridges is
expensive.
AB 1250 (Bloom) Page 3 of ?
4)Status of negotiations. Negotiations between the transit
agencies and state and local government continue. The two
major concerns left to be resolved with local government are,
1) whether articulated buses should be subject to permitting
because of the potential additional damage they cause, and 2)
the cut-off date for buses to meet the declining weight
limits. The specific concern with (2) is that the cut-off
dates are tied to solicitations, not delivery dates,
potentially making the deadline too open-ended. Negotiations
between the transit agencies and state government are in the
early stages so areas of agreement or disagreement aren't yet
known.
5)Two observations. One key metric for this bill is unladen, or
empty, weight. Supporters contend that this is a knowable,
consistent, and clear measure. However, this is an unusual
metric, as the much more common metric is gross, or actual,
weight. This measures the actual force of the tires, though
the gross weight for buses will vary throughout the day as
passenger loads rise and fall. For comparison, a fully loaded
bus is as much as one-third heavier than an empty bus.
A second observation is that the bill permits a maximum
allowable weight per axle of 25,000 pounds unladen for buses
procured in 2016 and 2017. This is much higher than the
weight of the heaviest axle of the heaviest bus: 22,700 pounds
unladen. The committee may wish to question why the starting
maximum weight is so high.
6)One pocket or the other. Forcing transit agencies to
prematurely remove their heaviest buses or to pay premium
prices for lower weight buses will be costly to taxpayers and,
to a lesser extent, riders. Forcing cities and the state
Department of Transportation to pay for additional road repair
due to overweight buses will also be costly to taxpayers.
Unless the bus industry can develop a lower weight bus, it
seems that there is no answer to the overweight bus problem
that won't be costly to taxpayers.
Related Legislation:
AB 1720 (Bloom, Chapter 263, Statutes of 2014) - provides a
two-year exemption for existing transit buses to exceed the
state weight limit, sunsetting at the end of 2016.
AB 1250 (Bloom) Page 4 of ?
AB 1706 (Eng, Chapter 771, Statutes of 2012) - provided a
two-year exemption for existing transit buses to exceed the
state weight limit, sunsetting at the end of 2014.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 80-0
Trans: 16-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
July 8, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
California Transit Association (sponsor)
City of Santa Monica
Orange County Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --