BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 1746 Hearing Date: 6/28/2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Mark Stone | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |5/24/2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Sarah Carvill | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Transit buses DIGEST: This bill expands the authority to operate transit buses on highway shoulders to eight additional transit operators. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1) Establishes numerous distinct transit districts, transportation authorities, and associations of governments, and enumerates the specific powers of each. 2) Authorizes the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to construct exclusive or preferential lanes for buses only, or for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles, or to permit exclusive or preferential use of designated lanes on existing highways that are part of the state highway system. 3) Requires motorists to drive on the right side of the roadway, with specified exceptions such as when the motorist is legally passing another vehicle. 4) Prohibits motorists from passing on the right, except in specified circumstances if conditions enable the motorist to pass safely, such as when the vehicle overtaken is about to make a left turn. AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 2 of ? 5) Prohibits a motorist from passing on the right if it requires driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway. 6) Allows a bicycle to travel on a shoulder of a roadway. 7) Authorizes the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD), subject to approval by Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to designate shoulders of certain highways and freeways within those transit districts as transit bus-only corridors (commonly referred to as bus-on-shoulder [BOS] programs). 8) Requires MST and SCMTD to each determine jointly with Caltrans and the CHP appropriate segments for BOS programs based on criteria including but not limited to right-of-way availability and capacity, peak congestion hours, and the most heavily congested areas. 9) Requires MST and SCMTD to each work with Caltrans and CHP, in a transparent manner that includes opportunity for public comment, to develop guidelines to ensure driver and vehicle safety, as well as integrity of the infrastructure. 10) Requires Caltrans, MST, and SCMTD to monitor the state of repair of highway shoulders used in the program, including repairs attributable to the operation of transit buses on the shoulders. 11) Provides that MST and SCMTD shall be responsible for all costs attributable to this program. 12) Authorizes the program to commence operation as soon as MST, SCMTD, Caltrans, and CHP have agreed upon guidelines. 13) Authorizes operation of a transit bus on the shoulder of a state highway in conjunction with a BOS program within the areas served by MST and SCMTD. This bill: 1) Authorizes the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, the AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 3 of ? Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, the North County Transit District, the San Diego Association of Governments, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to operate their own bus-on-shoulder programs, subject to the same requirements MST and SCMTD must meet to operate BOS programs under current law. 2) Requires that each of the above entities, in conjunction with Caltrans and the CHP, must submit a report to the legislature two years after initiating a bus-on-shoulder program. Reports must be posted on the entity's website and include the following: a) The geographic scope of the program b) A copy of the guidelines agreed to by the entity, Caltrans, and the CHP c) Information about any highway modifications made in relation to the program d) The costs associated with the program e) Performance measures used to evaluate the success of the program, such as safety, freeway operations, and changes in the reliability of transit and travel time savings COMMENTS: 1) Purpose. The author states that traffic congestion is a critical issue for transit programs throughout the state, and many districts are trying to find low-cost, safe, and reliable ways of making their transit programs more appealing to riders. The author notes that many transit agencies and districts are aware that schedule reliability is a main concern for their ridership, but do not have the funds to drastically expand infrastructure. The author argues that this bill will allow the specified districts to pursue, with the approval of Caltrans and the CHP, BOS programs that would allow for reliable service without significant infrastructure costs. AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 4 of ? 2) Scope. This bill applies to transit buses operated by specified transit districts only. No other buses would be allowed to drive on the shoulder. There is no sunset on the BOS authority conferred in existing law or by this bill. 3) BOS programs: the benefits. As noted by the author, the primary benefit of BOS programs is that they allow transit buses to bypass congestion using existing infrastructure. This reduces delays in bus service and increases the overall reliability of transit, which in turn increases transit's appeal to the public. BOS programs are also believed to be an effective method of recruiting new transit riders, since drivers creeping along in regular traffic lanes actually see buses cruising by them uninhibited. One Illinois transit district reported that bus ridership on a heavily-traveled corridor more than tripled in the two years following the initiation of a BOS demonstration project there. On-time performance, which had averaged less than 70%, reportedly increased to over 90%. 4) BOS in other states. Several jurisdictions across the country and in Canada have implemented BOS programs, including major metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Columbus, Miami, and the Twin Cities. These programs have been successful in shortening commute times and increasing transit ridership without increasing the number of collisions. In 2012, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) released a guide for implementing BOS programs based in part on an earlier study of seven BOS initiatives. These case studies provide detailed information on how existing programs have established signage and road marking requirements, set minimum lane widths and speed limits, trained drivers, minimized conflicts between buses and merging traffic, and otherwise improved infrastructure to accommodate buses on highway shoulders. This resource provides a starting point for transit agencies contemplating new BOS programs. 5) The California experience. Previous legislation, AB 946 (Stone, Chapter 426, Statutes of 2013), authorized a BOS program specifically for MST and SCMTD. To date, these agencies have not initiated programs due to a lack of resources for planning and evaluating potential projects. MST anticipates initiating a feasibility study this summer, so actual bus use of shoulders is still not imminent in AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 5 of ? Monterey. California does have direct experience with BOS, however. In 2005, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) conducted a demonstration program in partnership with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, Caltrans, and the CHP. An October 2007 Technical Report issued jointly by Caltrans and SANDAG noted that the program achieved a time savings of one minute per mile over a four-mile section of highway, which is equivalent to approximately $13,000 in annual savings for the transit operator. Overall, the report concluded that the project yielded strong benefits for transit operations, was perceived positively by transit drivers and transit passengers, and maintained safety on the highway. 6) Competing shoulder uses: a possible safety hazard. While the potential benefits of BOS programs are considerable, it is important to bear in mind that shoulders already serve important functions in maintaining traffic movement and highway safety. Law enforcement officers and highway maintenance workers use them regularly to perform critical job functions, and representatives of these organizations emphasize that the shoulder is a dangerous place to work even without transit buses in the mix. According to the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, nearly 30 CHP officers have died after being struck by cars on the shoulder. Caltrans workers are also often the victims of collisions that occur when regular traffic strays too close to the edge of the right lane. Opponents of this bill are concerned that it will be difficult for fast-moving buses to avoid emergency response and law enforcement personnel, road maintenance workers, and disabled vehicles on the shoulder - especially considering that buses are heavy vehicles and require longer stopping distances than the average passenger car. Additionally, congestion in regular traffic lanes may make it difficult for buses to merge back into the right lane when necessary. 7) Weight and wear and tear. In addition to the possible safety hazards described above, this bill raises questions about inherent, design-related incompatibilities between shoulders and buses. While there is no single design standard for shoulders in the state of California, generally they are not built to the standard of regular traffic lanes AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 6 of ? and are less able to withstand the wear and tear of traffic. As mentioned above, the kind of traffic that this bill would impose upon shoulders is particularly heavy. The average transit bus weighs nearly 40,000 pounds - about 10 times the mass of the average car 8) - and the low emissions buses that are increasingly used by California transit agencies are even heavier. This bill places the cost burden of additional wear and tear due to BOS operations on transit agencies exclusively. It also requires transit agencies to work with Caltrans and CHP to collect and publish data on maintenance costs and roadway modifications associated with BOS programs. 9) A tight squeeze. Another difficulty with putting buses on shoulders stems from their respective widths. According to the TCRP, most regular traffic lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide, but many shoulders can be less than 10 feet in width, particularly on older roads. The TCRP suggests 10 feet as a reasonable minimum shoulder width for BOS, but this is exactly the width of a standard, 8.5-foot-wide transit bus once its side mirrors are factored in. 10) Driver behavior. BOS programs may also pose problems related to the habits and behavior of other drivers. Opponents of this bill argue that the sight of buses traveling on shoulders may inspire drivers in regular traffic to follow them, illegally, into what is intended to be a bus-only lane. Unlike professional drivers, these individuals would not be trained to use the shoulder safely, or to adhere to relative and absolute speed limits specific to BOS travel. Another concern arises from the fact that the public is accustomed to seeing the shoulder as a safe place for disabled vehicles. Drivers experiencing mechanical problems may not exercise appropriate caution when pulling into a shoulder that is also designated for bus travel. 11) Balancing the risks and the benefits. Experiences in other states provide evidence that BOS programs can be a useful tool for increasing transit reliability and, by extension, increasing transit use. It is also important to note that as of 2012, TCRP knew of no BOS programs that had been discontinued due to safety issues. As an additional safeguard, this bill retains the provisions from AB 946 (see Related Legislation below), requiring Caltrans and CHP to AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 7 of ? review and approve any new bus on shoulder programs. Still, there are many reasons to approach BOS programs with caution. As it is currently written, this bill would expand an existing law that has yet to result in the implementation of a single BOS program to authorize such programs in eight additional transit districts. While it is clear that additional data on BOS in California would be useful, such a dramatic enlargement of BOS authority may not be warranted, given the potential risks of such programs and the limited experience of state government and transit agencies in this area. The author and committee may wish to consider amendments limiting the scope of this bill to the original sponsoring transit agency and the two transit agencies authorized to implement programs under existing law. Related Legislation: AB 946 (Stone, Chapter 426, Statutes of 2013) - authorized MST and SCMTD to operate a BOS program with approval from Caltrans and CHP. Assembly Votes: Floor: 76-0 Appr: 18-0 Trans: 16-0 FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 22, 2016.) SUPPORT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (sponsor) Alameda-Contra Contra Transit District California Transit Association Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Environmental Health Coalition Monterey-Salinas Transit North County Transit District San Diego Association of Governments AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 8 of ? OPPOSITION: California Association of Highway Patrolmen International Union of Operating Engineers -- END --