BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1250|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1250
Author: Bloom (D)
Amended: 7/6/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 7/14/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva,
McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/17/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 4/20/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Vehicles: buses: axle weight
SOURCE: California Transit Association
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.
AB 1250
Page 2
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
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
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.
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.
Technology requirements are part of the problem. California's
AB 1250
Page 3
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, it would
be wise to also consider the effects of the decisions on the
state's transportation infrastructure. Fixing the state's
deteriorating roads and bridges is expensive.
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.
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.
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
AB 1250
Page 4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will
result in unquantifiable minor to significant impact on pavement
maintenance costs as a result of accelerated degradation by
allowing the operation of overweight transit buses (State
Highway Account, local funds). Due to the numerous factors that
may result in pavement degradation, it is impossible to
calculate the isolated impacts and costs associated with the
operation of overweight transit buses on state
highways and local streets and roads.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/15)
California Association of Coordinated Transportation
California Transit Association
City of Arcata
City of Santa Monica
Orange County Transportation Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
Solano County Transit
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/19/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 4/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
AB 1250
Page 5
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
Prepared by:Randy Chinn / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/19/15 20:48:25
**** END ****